Yves Rocheleau

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Mercier for her very eloquent and sensitive testimony on the harmful effects of this legislation on Montreal's economy.

Do I really have only one minute left?

[Tobacco, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, given the imminent passage of the tobacco bill, I wish to speak out against the behaviour of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice and Prime Minister of Canada, who will become known as one of the people with the primary responsibility for the first class funeral of such events as the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix.

In fact, it will remain in the collective memory that, despite massive mobilization on a number of fronts, particularly from people in his own region who fear for their jobs, the Prime Minister continues to unfeelingly turn a deaf ear to these calls for help.

In 1993, the Liberals managed to convince the people in Saint-Maurice that they would benefit, as would the people in their entire region, and Quebec as a whole, from the Prime Minister's actions. Today, like the rest of us, they see that the end result is nothing but profound frustration, because the Prime Minister refuses to react to the negative impact of the anti-sponsorship clauses in his bill.

Fortunately, the people of Saint-Maurice will soon have a chance to make themselves heard, and we have confidence in them.

[Regional Development, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if that is profitable federalism, effective federalism, but when the Liberals formed the government in 1993, nearly two thirds of the money spent by the federal government in Quebec on regional development passed through the economic and regional development agreement. Today, three years later, it is less than a third. The federal government prefers to operate directly, over the heads of Quebec and the regions.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to put a stop immediately to his circuitous strategies and to negotiate in good faith with Quebec in the best interest of the regions of Quebec?

[Regional Development, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec.

For over a year now, the federal government has refused to renew the framework agreement on regional economic development with Quebec. In the meantime, sectoral agreements have expired, and the regions of Quebec are now suffering as a result.

Is the federal government prepared now to show its good intentions and conclude agreements on regional development with Quebec, as it did recently in ratifying agreements with New Brunswick and Nova Scotia?

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

It is with great pleasure that I rise again to speak to Bill C-71, which deals with tobacco in general, as well as its consumption, promotion, labelling, sale, and manufacture.

To start with, I would like to salute two of my colleagues who have done a tremendous amount of work on this issue, namely my colleague from Drummond and my colleague from Lévis, who often had to face difficult circumstances due to the underhanded way the government has dealt with this issue of utmost importance for thousands and thousands of Quebecers and Canadians. It tried to work behind closed doors, at the end of a session and at night, issuing position papers and press releases. It made sure the official opposition had to work under the most difficult conditions. It refused to work in committee, only to yield to pressure from the opposition. Therefore, I want to pay tribute to both my colleagues because without them, this debate would probably not have taken place.

I would also like to pay tribute to people who today rose to the occasion in Montreal of course, but also in Trois-Rivières, in my riding, in my home town. Restaurant owners, shopkeepers, taxi drivers, hotel managers and employees marched in the streets to show their unmitigated displeasure and disagreement with this particular provision of the bill and not with the spirit of the bill itself. These are significant nuances that the government in its carelessness seems unable to grasp.

As the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and leader of the opposition said during question period, we agree with 80 per cent of this bill. We, however, totally disagree with one of its major aspects, which is the focus of the present debate, and that is the advertising, the sponsorships. That is why I rose today. We can see how the government is acting in bad faith. The more the government speaks on this issue, the more we can see its bad faith; it wants to convince the public and this House that eliminating sponsorships, billboards and tobacco company logos will have a positive impact on people's health. This would require a great leap of logic that is outrageous.

The government is refusing to budge, even though it is a matter of economic development as thousands of jobs, including some 100 in Trois-Rivières, 3,000 in Montreal and 5,000 in Canada, are at stake. There are also some international repercussions. People in 141 countries can watch the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix on television. I discovered that this morning. This is no small feat! The Grand Prix is not a spontaneous event. If it can be held at all this year, it will be for the 28th year, thanks to the work and energy of the many volunteers involved.

My colleague, the member for Lévis, mentioned earlier that the Montreal Grand Prix was the third sporting event in importance after the Olympics and the World Cup in soccer. We are talking about huge events here. These are significant events which create an interest, they put Montreal on the map, they attract tourists and they make them want to come back.

The government is not being transparent, it is acting with shortsightedness and incompetence and in bad faith; it is trying to ram this bill through the House by muzzling the opposition as much as possible. We know that, at first reading, only one representative of the Bloc Quebecois, my colleague from Lévis, was able to speak. At second reading, the government also acted very quickly. It announced that closure would be imposed today

and that third reading would take place Thursday, so as to restrict debate as much as possible.

I would like to draw your attention to this government's attitude, which may be interpreted in various ways. Earlier the chairman of the health committee moved Motion No. 34 with great pride, saying-as the Prime Minister repeated later-that the bill would not come into effect until October 1, 1998. They were very proud of that announcement.

But, if this product is lethal, as I heard on the radio at home this morning, how can they brag about delaying the implementation of this bill as much as possible? Either this is an extremely harmful product or we are able to deal with it. However, if it is extremely harmful, as the bill is suggesting, let us try to act as soon as possible, and certainly not brag about it. Let us not amend this bill only to implement it on October 1.

Therefore, we see that the government is inconsistent and does not care about the public interest, about the best interests of the people. Either it is urgent or it is not. If it is urgent, let us act. If the bill is not so urgent, if it is not so serious, it should never be enforced. The government's current position is remarkably inconsistent, and this is something I wanted to underline.

In this respect, we must also point to the very deplorable behaviour of someone from La Mauricie who, given his influence, his power, his origins, is quite aware of what is going on and of the terrible, catastrophic impact this bill will have on the Quebec economy. You will have recognized the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice, whose behaviour and carelessness I condemn. He does not listen and springs to the defence of this bill.

Reference was made earlier to the great public rallies in Montreal and Trois-Rivières, where people have taken to the streets today. Opposition to the bill is mounting. I would be very pleased to read a release I just received at 3.23 p.m., stating the position of the Montreal Exchange on this issue, not that of the Bloc Quebecois.

Very briefly, it reads: "The Montreal Exchange supports the various Montreal communities that are protesting the adoption of Bill C-71. According to its President and Chief Executive Officer, Gérald A. Lacoste, the loss of international events, due to the passing of the law as presented, would be disastrous for Montreal. The Montreal Exchange has frequently used these large-scale events, such as the Canadian Grand Prix and the Du Maurier Open, to promote the dynamism of Montreal and its marketplace among the international financial community".

This is a fine illustration of the consensus developing in a wide segment of the population, which is a stakeholder for one part and an observer for the other, and which realizes that this government simply lost its bearings and, in this case, can appropriately and colloquially be said to have lost it.

[Tobacco Act, March 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of citizens in Trois-Rivières have shown their opposition to the bill aimed at regulating tobacco sponsorship, and attempted once again to bring to its senses this Liberal government which is jeopardizing the very existence of the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix.

SIDAC members, stores and businesses, suspended their activities for 15 minutes in a show of solidarity because the Saint-Maurice area cannot allow this government to cause the loss of $10 million in economic spinoffs, of hundreds of jobs, and the loss of international exposure due to the broadcasting of the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix in 141 countries.

Under the guise of public health, a concept it abuses, this government is making a mockery of the freedom of expression and showing its intolerance and shortsightedness by leading people to believe that the disappearance of tobacco sponsorship will be synonymous with an improvement in public health.

This is the reason why people in greater Trois-Rivières are once again condemning the stubbornness of the Prime Minister, although he is from our area, and the fundamentalism of the Liberal government.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the few minutes I have left to tell you how important the Grand Prix de Trois-Rivières mentioned earlier is for jobs. It generates 150 jobs, including 80 directly. It is an event of considerable economic importance for the Trois-Rivières region. It is an international event, because it is broadcast throughout North America. It is televised because it is permitted.

Clause 31 clearly provides, and I quote:

31.(1) No person shall, on behalf of another person, with or without consideration, publish, broadcast or otherwise disseminate any promotion that is prohibited by this Part.

It will no longer be permitted to televise a sporting event of the size of the Players Trois-Rivières Grand Prix, because the law will prohibit it.

Oddly enough, clause 31(2) permits the same sort of events when they come from outside the country, and I quote:

31.(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the distribution for sale of an imported publication or the retransmission of radio or television broadcasts that originate outside Canada.

This means that, when it comes from Quebec or Trois-Rivières, it is serious and promotes smoking and when it originates elsewhere, it does not. Or does it mean that, when a European Grand Prix is being broadcast and the word Valvoline appears behind a car it is OK to televise, but if the world Marlboro appears, the transmission will be jammed? Where are we going with this?

This does not make any sense. It goes to show how out of touch this government is, with its gurus and the kind of ayatollahs who

advise the Minister of Health of Canada, who has completely lost touch with common sense and growing public pressure across Canada for preserving cultural and sports events by maintaining sponsorships from the private sector.

We must realize that this ban on television advertising would take effect immediately and not later, as suggested by the chair of the Liberal caucus in an interview to the CBC, when he said that the amendments will delay implementation. In fact, the amendments that apply concern clause 24, and are set out in clause 60, which states that clauses 24(2) and 24(3) will come into force on October 1, 1998, or at an earlier date set in an order.

This affects the 10 per cent rule, whereby cigarette advertising shall not take up more than 10 per cent of the billboards or ads. That provision will take effect on October 1, 1998. But the ban on the broadcasting of events, where sponsors or philanthropists are paid back for investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in such or such an event, will be effective immediately, which means the Grand Prix de Trois-Rivières will be affected as early as next summer. That is totally unacceptable, because no real consultation has taken place.

It is especially annoying since it has not been demonstrated in any way that looking at billboard advertising or watching television ads is an inducement to use tobacco products. There are no studies showing that. The only evidence available is that a smoker, which means someone who already uses tobacco products, may switch brands after attending the Du Maurier tennis tournament, seeing the Bendon and Hedges Symphony of Fire or travelling to Trois-Rivières for the Grand Prix sponsored by Players. He may prefer a Players cigarette over a Du Maurier.

But that is his own choice, it is not a matter of public policy. What could be interesting and fundamental to prove is that someone who sees these billboards could decide to start smoking. But that is laughable.

I will conclude by quoting this morning's editorial in the daily Le Nouvelliste , which addresses the issue of sponsorship and billboards. It says: ``We have a hard time believing that a teenager from Trois-Rivières would take up smoking just because he was exposed to a Players billboard ten days a year''.

It is that simple, there is nothing complicated about this issue, that is common sense. It just goes to show that the government is out of touch and so hypocritical that it wants it both ways. We know how much tax revenue smoking brings in. If the government was consistent, would it not completely prohibit tobacco and cigarettes production? If smoking is so bad for our health that no ads can be broadcast, should we not stand up and have a real debate on the issue and think about prohibiting the production and importation of tobacco products? Then, we would be addressing the real issues instead of dealing once again with the government's hypocritical and stealthy behaviour.

[Tobacco Legislation, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, through its antismoking measures, the Liberal government is threatening cultural and sports events in Quebec and in Canada. The Liberals are dealing a hard blow to Montreal's international reputation and to Quebec's and Canada's tourism industry as a whole.

Economic benefits exceeding $130 million and more than 2,000 jobs mean absolutely nothing to the Liberals.

The coalition for freedom of sponsorship is not asking for the moon. It simply wants a slight relaxing of the rules governing sponsorship. What is even worse, the proposed bill is leading us straight to a legal challenge that will probably end up before the Supreme Court, at taxpayers' expense, of course.

The Liberals who have promised, through the Prime Minister, to do everything they can to help Montreal cannot think of anything better than to attack one of Montreal's most prosperous sectors. This is also true for Trois-Rivières and its Grand Prix.

This shows once again that the Chrétien government's rhetoric is nothing but a smoke screen.

[Tobacco Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament representing Trois-Rivières, I am very pleased to finally speak on Bill C-71, the Tobacco Act, which is an act to regulate the manufacture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products, to make consequential amendments to another act and to repeal certain acts. The purpose of this bill is to protect Canadians and Quebecers, young persons in particular, from inducements to use tobacco products and to restrict access to tobacco products.

In this case as in others, no one can stand against what is good and right. Essentially, it is obvious that, in response to legitimate public concern, the government is acting with good intentions in wanting to protect public health, and the health of young persons in particular, and to restrict access to tobacco products. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is a limit. As you know we must not lose touch with reality, especially economic reality as it relates to cultural and sports events.

Cultural as well as sports events rely on sponsorship and, in this particular instance, this support comes from the private sector.

For once that the private sector is genuinely philanthropic in its actions, in the name of doing what is right, we are putting roadblocks in the way of those at the receiving end of the sponsorship, the organizers who, painstakingly, year after year, from coast to coast, in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal-and Trois-Rivières, of course-in particular, put together major cultural and sports events with the help of hundreds and thousands of volunteers. With its good intentions, this government is seriously compromising the future of these events.

We are talking about $60 million a year in sponsorships from the private sector across Canada, $30 million or 50 per cent for Quebec. That is how we can enjoy great events like the Just for Laughs festival, the Benson and Hedges Symphony of Fire, the Montreal Grand Prix and the Players Grand Prix in Trois-Rivières.

That is what is at stake here. Such events are being compromised deliberately. Next summer, Trois-Rivières will host the 28th edition of its Grand Prix. The event means $8 to $10 million in investments for the region. Hotel rooms have been reserved at least a year in advance throughout the Mauricie region. From an economic point of view, this is the region's main event.

Lacking vision and having all but lost its grip, the government dispenses with consultation, shrugs off people's legitimate representations, and keeps trying to have its own way, by slyly rushing things through the day after the budget speech, as well as today, which was supposed to be set aside for the reply to the budget speech. The government is flouting all the rules and muzzling the opposition at second reading.

Once again, as my colleague from Drummond pointed out a moment ago, amendments were proposed late at night to try and keep public pressure to a minimum.

I still have five minutes, I think, so I will continue later, after oral question period.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is understandable that the Canadian government was scared by the results of the referendum and that it wants to try, with great difficulty, considering the limited budgets available, a sense of belonging in all Canadian provinces including, for the purpose in hand, in the "province" of Quebec, where most Quebecers are to be found.

But one should never forget, first, that for each dollar invested in such propaganda, 25 cents comes from Quebec. Thus, there should be some form of ethics, some respect, a gentleness and a sense of democracy in the spending of these funds, since they come in a large part from Quebecers, including sovereignists.

Also, when one wants to create a sense of belonging, one should be aware, as we have seen earlier, that the line is very fine between the will to create that feeling and mere propaganda. Approximately one year ago, Chantal Hébert wrote something in La Presse and I would like to know how the hon. member for St. Boniface responds to that. Mrs. Hébert who, as far as we know, is not a sovereignist does good work as a daily columnist for La Presse .

She wrote: "Since 1995, all departments have been instructed to celebrate the Canadian flag. A survey was made of their efforts. For example, on February 15, 1995, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation presented its employees with a cake in the form of the Canadian flag, and its cafeteria provided a "Canadian" menu. Even the Canadian spies were in on it. That same week, all the employees of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service found the story of the Canadian flag in their electronic mail. All public service managers were urged to circulate a questionnaire on Canada to their staff through the electronic mail. Consideration was given to the possibility of asking public servants' children to participate in drawing contests on their love of Canada. Public servants were encouraged to wear red and white on the anniversary of the flag".

One can promote Canadian patriotism but I think that the very fine line between patriotism and propaganda was just crossed, and I would like to hear what my colleague for St. Boniface has to say about this.