Michel Bellehumeur

[Pulp And Paper Companies, March 3rd, 1997]

How reassuring.

[Reference To Supreme Court, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the minister failed to answer this question, which, nevertheless, is in his brief. That is quite distressing.

In its arguments, the federal court also contends that a constitutional amendment would be required for Quebec to declare independence. I would like to understand, for it is vitally important.

Is the Minister of Justice telling us that, if a majority of Quebecers vote in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, a province like Prince Edward Island, which has at best 93,000 voters, could block the democratic will of over five million Quebec voters?

[Reference To Supreme Court, March 3rd, 1997]

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

Last Friday, the federal government revealed its argument in its reference to the Supreme Court. As always, the language is irresponsible and provocative. All it is capable of doing, in fact, is subscribing to the opinion of an expert, who holds that, and I quote: "The only way for an entity to secede unilaterally is by traditional means, which involves winning a war of independence, as did Bangladesh-".

Will the minister acknowledge that his government is acting irresponsibly in taking an extremist position and raising the spectre of civil war?

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, you are right. The hon. member across the way is right.

I think this is a bill that hits close to home with the Bloc Quebecois members. I would, however, also like to ask you to keep the parliamentary secretary quiet when members are defending Quebec in connection with this bill. He is the one who is stirring things up constantly with his inappropriate comments, when this matter is being discussed.

In closing, I wish to state, so that the people of Berthier-Montcalm may be perfectly clear on my position-that I will be sending a letter out to all of the convenience stores. I have not had an opportunity to talk about convenience stores. We could find a lot to say about convenience stores, about the regulatory power the minister has reserved for himself to tell them how to run their business, where to put their cigarettes. They will now have to tell their customers: "Pay for your cigarettes before you get them, and tough luck for you if you change your mind, because you will be stuck with them".

Did he also announce that he will compensate convenience stores for the fact that they will no longer be allowed to use tobacco company stands to display the packages of cigarettes? No. There are a lot of things relating to the bill which are not stated clearly.

I will see that a letter goes out to all of the convenience stores, all of the supermarkets, all of the pharmacies, a very clear letter inviting people to reason with this government, to intervene, to realize that this government and the Liberal members from Quebec are not working on behalf of their fellow citizens.

I am also inviting all of the hon. members on the government side to make this bill an election issue. Defer it, and we in the Bloc Quebecois will debate it in all of the municipalities of Quebec, in every corner of Quebec, and we will see whose side the public is on. Will it side with the Liberal government, which is passing irresponsible legislation, or with the people of Quebec, who do not want this bill?

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Perhaps you should listen and tell your minister to withdraw his Bill C-71, which goes against Quebec's interests and hurts its economy. Such is the reality.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

-that in my own riding of Berthier-Montcalm Bill C-71 directly affects certain events. I did not hear the minister or the parliamentary secretary mention that either. The people of Berthierville are very proud of the Gilles Villeneuve museum. Why is there a museum? There was a racing driver named Gilles Villeneuve who put Berthierville on the world map. Today there is a museum in Berthierville in his honour.

While the Grand Prix are going on in Montreal and Trois-Rivières, people from Switzerland, Italy and Monaco come to visit the Gilles Villeneuve museum. These people spend money at the corner store, hotels and restaurants. That means millions for Quebec, not just for the Montreal area. I did not hear the minister or the parliamentary secretary mention that.

There is something else in this bill which I find unacceptable. This measure has a direct impact on tobacco production; it so happens that 80 per cent of that production comes from the Lanaudière region, which is in my riding and in the riding of Joliette.

The bill has an impact on that industry, but the government does not talk about it. How many jobs are involved? The hon. member for Joliette can confirm that 1,500 jobs are directly related to tobacco production. Annual profits from that industry total about $20 million, for the ridings of Berthier-Montcalm and Joliette.

But the parliamentary secretary and the Liberals are silent on that issue.

Fortunately, there are Bloc members here to set the record straight. We work at protecting Quebec's interests, because the members opposite do not. Since we started debating the bill this morning, I have yet to see Liberal members from Quebec speak for our province's interests. Where are they? Since December, they have been telling the media and sports organizations: "We will defend Bill C-71 and we will defend tobacco sponsorship".

Where are these members from Quebec who are supposed to look after the interests of their province? Where are these Liberal members? They are not here. They are hiding. They are ashamed of this bill. They are not here because they did not fulfil their duty as members of Parliament, which is to effectively represent their constituents before cabinet, before their party. That is why they are not here. They have failed. They tried to calm people down. They engaged in disinformation, as the parliamentary secretary is doing now. Perhaps he should listen.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

What hurts me most in this bill is-

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is a wonderful example of the Liberal way of doing things.

In December 1996, the government tabled a bill on tobacco products. It managed to keep speakers for the Bloc Quebecois to a minimum. The bill was passed on the quiet and quickly referred to committee. And now, on a Friday, in the very week the Minister of Finance tabled his budget, just before the House adjourns for a week, it quietly brings it before the House. They want to pass it without making waves. This is a controversial bill and no one in Quebec wants this bill. The minister knows that, that is why he wants to neak it by us. "Maybe the Bloc will not be there, so we can pass it quickly". Well they are wrong, once again: the Bloc is here, as we always are when it is time to defend the interests of Quebec.

Once again, the Bloc will show that if it were left to the Liberals and federalists in this House, one more bill would be passed at the expense of Quebec, because that is what Bill C-71 is about. Who is going to suffer most? Quebecers. Amazing.

I was listening earlier to the parliamentary secretary talking about the health of Canadians and Quebecers and telling us how much the use of tobacco products costs us in the way of health care. Amazingly the parliamentary secretary forgot to say how much revenue tobacco products pour into the Treasury every year. Cigarettes put $3.5 billion into the government's treasury. He did not mention that. Of course not.

What would the Minister of Finance have done this week if $3.5 billion had been cut from his budget? I know the answer: he would probably have offloaded the additional deficit to the provinces, as he has always done with transfer payments. For the time being, they are being holier than thou. The health of Canadians is terribly important, but meanwhile, they collect the cash, and that is something they do not talk about. Cigarettes and tobacco products represent $3.5 billion in revenue annually. They do not mention that.

Another thing the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Health failed to say was that this bill directly affects sports and cultural events in Quebec. Sponsors annually invest between $30 million and $35 million in these activities, in Quebec alone. It is odd that the minister and the parliamentary secretary did not mention that. I would like to have heard them say what they would do.

As we saw in the budget, this week the government is dropping just about everyone. In the same week, it tables Bill C-71, which will cut funding directly and threaten the very survival of cultural and sporting events in Quebec. Between $30 million and $35 million will thus be affected.

This is money invested directly by sponsors. Do you know how much money is reinvested by the people who attend these festivals in Quebec, people from elsewhere, tourists? Do you know how much money they leave in Quebec? They bring in $133 million. Do you know how many direct jobs are created? Two thousand jobs are directly linked to cultural and sporting events.

The government has been saying "jobs, jobs, jobs" since 1993. All it has done this week is invest a mere $25 million in the budget and cut 2,000 jobs in Quebec. These are jobs directly related to sports and cultural activities.

[Rcmp, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this reply does not answer the question, but the official opposition is getting used to that.

In June 1996, the Employment Insurance Commission, which is an administrative federal tribunal, recognized that Mr. Delisle's suspension had more to do with his attempt to unionize than with a violation of regulation 57.

Will the minister confirm that the real reason the government is after Mr. Delisle is because the RCMP is trying to "break" his attempts to unionize the force's members?

[Rcmp, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.

On December 12, 1996, RCMP Sergeant Delisle learned that the Clerk of the Privy Council had invoked section 39 of the Evidence Act to make sure no vital information would be submitted before the RCMP disciplinary court, which held a hearing on January 20 on the violation of regulation 57 concerning the holding of a public office by Mr. Delisle.

How does the minister explain that section 39 was used in this specific case, since it had the effect of preventing Sergeant Delisle from submitting, for his defence, documents that had been public for at least two years?