Pierre Brien

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see you in the Chair. It is now my turn to speak to Bill C-375, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that amendments can be made, even if they do not have the approval of all the provinces, by having a system in which at least two thirds of the provinces representing 50 per cent of the population would be enough to make these amendments.

It is a bit much to see that, on the one hand, they say no to a bill promoting trade between the provinces, something that should benefit the provinces, and that here in Ottawa, they want to pass a bill to impose interprovincial trade on the provinces against their will. There is something wrong here. Obviously, it smacks of the old logic that Ottawa has a monopoly on truth: "We know what is good for you, and we will make sure that is what you get".

What is worse, this is not the only sector in which this refrain comes up. We know very well that, when you talk about seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population, seeing how a consensus is arrived at in Canada, Quebec is often left standing on its own and often gets a raw deal.

I am surprised to see a Reform member sponsoring this bill. Three and a half years ago, when we first arrived here, I recall meeting these members at a luncheon designed to help us get to know each other's respective positions a bit better and being told they were for decentralization.

I think they are getting ready to deliver the same message during the next election campaign, but it is not very consistent with what we see here: "Yes, Canada must be decentralized, the provinces must be given more power, and so on. The provinces are in the best position to decide what is good for their future".

On one of the very last bills in private members' business, we heard a member of this same party say: "No, in the end we are changing course and siding with the Liberals". It is unbelievable how Ottawa can change people in a few years. This seems to be a dynamic that runs through all of the federal machinery. For us, this is a highly centralizing trend, one with no consideration for the provinces. Once again, there is talk of putting in place clauses in favour of domestic trade.

It is common knowledge today that, in the world of politics, the world of economics, and the world in general, people know that this is an era of opening up borders and encouraging the free circulation of goods and services, of capital, or of individuals. When it is good for economic activity, people reach agreement and liberalize trade.

So why would this be done against the will of some people? Why at some point would it be said: "No, some provinces do not agree, but we are still going to impose this decision upon them, because Ottawa has decided it would be a good thing to do"?

How could the federal government decide something is good, and a province decide otherwise? What gives it more right to decide what is good and what is not?

This represents a return to that political paternalism that exists in Ottawa, that supremacy some people want to give this Parliament over the provinces.

This bill is hard to accept. I am certain that this desire for centralization which we often see expressed here will be one of the issues openly discussed in the coming weeks, and will go beyond domestic trade.

I come from a region of Quebec, Témiscamingue, in Abitibi, a magnificent region I would invite you to visit if you have the opportunity. The people in the regions are increasingly anxious for decentralization, and not just toward the provinces. For us, when we in Abitibi-Témiscamingue speak of decentralization, we think of Abitibi-Témiscamingue, not necessarily of decentralization only toward the provinces.

We know, for instance, that all federal regional development agencies have become agencies for political propaganda. They say they are there to help businesses become more competitive. In fact, the provinces already have similar structures. In the regions we are trying to have our own tools. We want to control these tools for economic development and we want to see them used by people, by our businesses where they are needed.

There are regions in Quebec and Canada which specialize in certain fields. In the agricultural sector this varies considerably. Some provinces are much better in the dairy sector and in poultry and egg production, while other provinces are good in beef and there are even different regions within these provinces.

The point is that the decision making power should be much closer to the grassroots. We have natural units and territories that have formed over the years. That is where the real power should be. They are close to the people. It is normal for national policies to be determined in parliaments. We hope that will be the case in the Parliament of Quebec, obviously. Everyone knows we are sovereignists and that we believe the national Parliament should be the

Parliament of Quebec, but we must decentralize to let our regions manage their own development.

So we have a measure that goes in the opposite direction. Ottawa is going to decide how interprovincial trade will be conducted, if it is to implement provisions that promote trade. However, there may be major differences of opinion. What about construction or government procurement?

In fact, there is quite a discussion going on in Quebec around this bill. We have dairy producers challenging the provisions on margarine colouring and butter. This is quite an issue. There are provincial authorities which are also accountable to the voters and as a result under pressure to do something.

I do not understand why people who are profoundly federalist and say they want to decentralize want all this to be decided here in Ottawa. We should leave it up to the provinces. When the provinces think it would be useful, they can conclude bilateral trade agreements. They can also enter into agreements among themselves. When all this has been done, then the government can go ahead but it should not impose such agreements, and this applies to both economic issues and constitutional issues.

The seven and fifty formula, which involves imposing on others, is certainly not the way to build and develop a country. This is what will happen in the coming years to bring us back to the situation that has long existed. Canada and Quebec will be two different entities, but imposing things against the will of one of the two founding peoples will mean political catastrophe for Canada.

I therefore do not recommend this route, except for Canada's own future within its own provinces. If it obviously works for everyone, people will agree at that point.

In conclusion, I simply want to mention as well that it is important to understand Canada's trade dynamic, which is much more along north-south lines now than east-west. So trade is developing more toward the south now. I know there is a certain nostalgia. Some want trade to go along east-west lines, even force it to do so to some extent. This is perhaps the desire underlying all that. We all know that trade is now naturally developing much more between north and south.

I close by expressing my great disappointment at the 180 degree about-face taken by a member of the Reform Party. I can hardly wait to watch these members explain their support for decentralization in the upcoming elections, when the aim of this bill is totally the opposite.

[Goods And Services Tax, April 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on March 19, the Minister of Finance himself compared the adjustment assistance paid to the maritimes for harmonizing their taxes to the financial support provided to the Saguenay flood victims and to equalization payments, as if this was just another federal assistance program for have-not regions. The minister finally admitted that his harmonization adjustment assistance formula was a front, a pretence to deny Quebec compensation.

With his share of the $1 billion paid to the maritime provinces, Frank McKenna is wooing away our businesses with our own tax money. When will the minister put an end to this unfair competition? When will he pay Quebec the $2 billion it is entitled to?

[Goods And Services Tax, April 23rd, 1997]

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

The Minister of Finance has nothing better than unconvincing sophistries to offer in response to the Quebec Minister of Finance, who reviewed his calculations and was able to provide evidence, in black and white, that Quebec is indeed entitled to $2 billion, and not to zilch, as maintained by the minister.

Since it has been established that the minister's McKenna formula, when used properly, provides for $2 billion in compensation for Quebec, why is the minister not paying this $2 billion to Quebec? Why is he stubbornly defending the indefensible?

[Toys Promoting Violence, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one of my constituents, Martine Ayotte, is putting together the world's biggest puzzle. This is a very special puzzle where each piece in fact consists of a petition to ban toys that are an incentive to violence.

So far, this initiative by a mother of five children has resulted in 26,000 signatures, and there are more to come. The purpose of this courageous initiative is to prevent the manufacturing, importation, marketing and advertising of toys which carry instructions that are clearly an incentive to violence.

Next month, Mrs. Ayotte will be at the House of Commons to put together all the pieces of this impressive puzzle. On this occasion,

she hopes to make the government aware of her initiative to push for appropriate legislation.

I fully support Mrs. Ayotte's initiative, and I would urge members of all parties to do the same. On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I want to commend this woman on the imaginative way she is trying to improve our society.

[Haiti, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain to us why the two soldiers who dared reveal the truth concerning the increasingly dangerous situation in Haiti, for both police officers and the military, have been moved to administrative positions?

[Haiti, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

Three weeks ago, a number of Canadian police officers and soldiers stationed in Haiti stated that their lives were endangered by the lack of co-operation by local authorities. Today the situation has not improved. On the contrary, Canadian patrols are the victims of repeated attacks by Haitians throwing stones.

Does the minister agree that these statements are troubling, and can he tell us whether his department has initiated an inquiry to cast some light on the situation?

[Tobacco Legislation, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, every year thousands of tourists flock to the Témiscamingue region for the Ville-Marie international regatta, and of course to visit our magnificent region at the same time.

This event has a major economic impact on our region, not to mention the redistribution of profit among local organizations in order to improve the quality of life there.

Alas, the Liberal government is going at it hammer and tongs, threatening the survival of events of this type with its Bill C-71. This bill, in doing away with tobacco company sponsorships, will deprive the international regatta circuit of a major financial partner. And what lies behind such a decision? A desire to encourage young people to smoke less, or a desire to get at Quebec's sporting and cultural events, the focus of 50 per cent of the tobacco companies' sponsorships?

This is, in fact, just window-dressing, a measure by a government which wants to give the impression that it is concerned about the health of Canadians, and to make people forget the billions of dollars in cuts to health care funding.

I wish to make it clear to the people of Témiscamingue that the Bloc Quebecois will continue its battle against this bill and will keep on demanding that the Liberals explain themselves to all parts of Quebec when the next election is held.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

You are doing the Speaker's job.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague, the hon. parliamentary secretary, that in order to appreciate the validity of arguments and understand them, one must show a minimum of respect and listen to people when they talk.

Getting back to the cultural sector, the hon. member is probably upset by my statement that the cultural sector in Quebec will be greatly affected. I was referring to events such as the World Film Festival, the Jazz Festival, the Quebec City Summer Festival and many other events which succeeded, through the years, in securing more private than public financial support.

The organizers managed, on their own initiative, to find sources of funding. They were told: "Be more autonomous". With time they managed to find sources of funding for their events, which have become great successes. These events have become profitable and have helped enhance the city of Montreal and Quebec as a whole. Other events elsewhere in Canada do the same.

Today, they plan to deprive them of their sources of funding by going after the sponsors. Naturally, the ban is not total but the consequences will be the same. We know very well what the consequences of overregulation will be. Such events will become much less attractive, hence the strong reaction of the people concerned.

The same can be said about sporting events. Take for instance the Montreal Grand Prix and the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix. Vancouver and Toronto also have car races. Prohibiting sponsorship will have a major impact.

At home, we have international regattas, which follow a circuit in Quebec and the United States and which will be seriously affected, because a major sponsor is Export "A". Anticipating events, the company chose to not necessarily renew their financial commitments, in case sponsorship is banned.

Think about it. I remember a sign in the middle of a lake at home. If only 10 per cent of the sign may be used to display the company name, you would need binoculars to see the print at the bottom. This is crazy. It would take signs of 1,000 feet by 1,000 feet, an incredible size, for any kind of visibility, if only tiny lettering is permitted on these signs.

I have some questions in this regard. What is the real purpose? We all know this will have an effect, particularly on Montreal. The Liberals take great pleasure in saying they want to help get Montreal and Quebec's economy rolling again.

The events being targeted work well. There are so many things that do not work well here that we should spend our time trying to fix them rather than going after the things that do work. This is what makes people sick.

It colours the credibility of all members of this House. I was listening to an open line radio show on my way home. People were calling to express their mistrust of politicians and saying: "Look at all the time they waste making stupid laws". This is what we are

talking about today. These people have a very hard time believing politicians after that.

The hon. parliamentary secretary, who travels extensively, reminds me of a chihuahua, a breed of dog that barks all the time. Where was he when cabinet made the decision to go ahead with this? In Quebec, he goes around passing himself off as a great champion of that province. He is also the member representing Outremont in this House, and the Montreal area as well. Where was he? Who exactly did he protect in this matter? He makes public appearances now and then to say he will stand up for cultural and sports events. He then disappears for a few days. He was nowhere to be found. One wonders what has happened to him, why he is so silent.

The day of reckoning is coming. I hope his voters will send him a very clear message in the next federal election, one he will not soon forget.

There are other aspects to this bill. Take the regulations they want to impose on convenience stores. Amendments have been made; still, there is a desire to regulate convenience stores left, right and center. Imagine this, they even want to ensure that cigarettes are paid for before they are handed over to the client. Will the exchange have to take place within a specified time, just in case the client changed his mind between the time he asked for the cigarettes and the time he received them? Why not? That may be the next step. It makes no sense.

Convenience stores will also have to make physical changes to the premises to comply with a number of provisions. They will not be allowed to display tobacco products on counters.

Look, when people go to a store to buy a product, the fact that it is displayed on a shelf, whether it is on the left, the right or the middle, will not make them change their minds. Location will not make any difference. We have to strike at the root of the problem: the reasons why people, and young people in particular, start smoking. Those are the people who need to be educated about the dangers of tobacco use.

I am not a smoker. I am not defending my own interests here; quite the contrary, I am allergic to tobacco smoke. There is no smoking in my house. There is no smoking around my house and people I see on a regular basis do not smoke. But there is a limit to going after people who made a choice at some point. They must comply with regulations in the workplace and elsewhere, but this is going very far.

In the minute I have left, I want to discuss another aspect of the bill. The government says: "Trust us regarding the regulations that have yet to be drafted. Take our word. Give us a blank cheque". But we sure know what it does with its promises and its commitments. We all know what this government does with its promises, starting with the Prime Minister. When the example comes from above, it makes people suspicious. I am convinced the public would not forgive us if we gave a blank cheque to this government regarding regulations.

We will do all we can to keep the government from passing a bill that would have devastating effects.

The minister said: If we do not pass a bill on tobacco, you will vote against us. I say to the minister: Go ahead with this bill. There are already a lot of people in Quebec who will vote against you; there will simply be more. You will pay the political price at the next election. Withdraw this legislation. Raise the issue during the election campaign. Let us have a public debate and give people an opportunity to be heard. You will see what they think. You will see how Quebecers feel about this issue.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to ask the parliamentary secretary to please-