Pierre De Savoye

[Bloc Quebecois, March 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has a new leader, and, for the first time, the leader of a federal political party was elected by universal suffrage.

More than 50,000 members of the Bloc exercised their right to vote. That figure is more than the number of Quebecers belonging to the Liberal Party of Canada. This is an extraordinary democratic exercise, and I challenge the other federal political parties to follow the Bloc's example.

I speak on behalf of all my colleagues, supporters of the Bloc, and leadership candidates in congratulating the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie.

We have no doubt that, with our team of members, he will gain the support of all those who hold so dear the sovereignty of Quebec and the defence of the interests of the people of Quebec.

Well done, Gilles.

[Government Programs, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, to set things straight, first of all, the fund involved was the transition job creation fund. Second, the money does not come from the Liberal Party, but from the people. What I am referring to is not a favour from the Liberal Party, but application of a non-partisan government program. You will have understood, what we are talking about here is political morality.

I am asking my question of the minister, who has just opened the door to me. Yes, I will provide the information, and does he commit, in this House, to investigating his own department and that of his colleague in Human Resources Development, to find out how information provided confidentially to a departmental employee ended up in the newspapers?

[Government Programs, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday March 4, at 4.30 p.m., a company in the process of setting up operations in my riding learned from the mouth of the president of the local Liberal Party of Canada association herself that it would be receiving over $50,000 in grants, and learned this less than an hour after the minister had signed his agreement. The following day, the offices of the Minister of Human Resources Development and the President of Treasury Board released to the press certain confidential information on the business plan of that company.

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development, or the President of Treasury Board, explain in this House how it happens that, on the eve of an election, the Liberal riding president,Mrs. Mathieu, is the one to announce grants to the riding of Portneuf, on behalf of the government?

[Parliament Of Canada Act, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure this evening to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-250. The bill was introduced by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.

It is a very interesting bill, in that it provides that general elections would from now on be held on a set date. The date suggested by the hon. member in the bill is the third Monday in October.

Consider the current situation. Right now, we know our Prime Minister is considering whether it would be opportune to call an election in the months or even weeks to come. In fact, people were wondering last fall whether a snap election would be called.

I suppose the Prime Minister checks his thermometer of public opinion and looks at the temperature. Right now, he is probably saying that the temperature in Quebec is not very favourable for the Liberal Party. When he looks at British Columbia, the temperature is milder.

The question he must ask himself is this: should I wait a few months more, for instance until the fall, because the temperature might go up in Quebec? Or if I wait a few months, will the temperature go down in British Columbia? I am of course referring to the temperature of public opinion.

According to his own line of reasoning, he will probably say that even if he were to wait a few months, the temperature will probably not go up in Quebec, so it is not worth postponing the election. On the other hand, if he waits a few months, maybe the Reform Party will get better organized in British Columbia and maybe the Conservative Party will get some hair on their chest and, finally, the temperature will go down.

So after weighing the pros and cons, the Prime Minister then decides what the best time would be to call an election. I cannot blame the Prime Minister of Canada for using the system to his own advantage and the advantage of his party, the Liberal Party.

But at the same time we should also consider the consequences of this approach. In fact, as we all wait for the Prime Minister to make his decision, we cannot make any definite plans for events

that might take place during the election campaign. For instance, committees that must start on certain studies should remember that they can be interrupted or even cancelled if a general election is called in May or in June for instance.

As for me and my fellow members in this House, we all have to make special arrangements in our ridings because we may not be able to do certain things in May or in June because the Prime Minister might call a general election. In fact, proceeding in this way creates a level of uncertainty that is entirely counterproductive.

For instance, how could a business plan its short, medium and long term operations if, on a whim of its director, it had to interrupt everything to elect a board of directors? In fact, this uncertainty undermines the efficiency of this House and the ability of individual members, committees and the House as such to discharge their responsibilities.

The advantage of the bill before the House today is that it eliminates this uncertainty so that we know in advance when an election will be called and can plan accordingly when scheduling the business of the House, the business of committees and the work done by each member of this House.

At the same time, let us not think that will deprive the Prime Minister and his party of the opportunity to take advantage of the new rules. The government party will also know when the election is going to be called, and can therefore organize its legislative agenda, its various speeches, its press releases, its new policies, so as to best serve its interests, put it in the best light with the public, according to the planned, and known, date of the election.

In fact, what is involved here is not depriving the government of a bunch of advantages this power confers upon them, but rather changing the ground rules so that the harmful effects of the present rules are avoided.

I must admit, I feel a bit uncomfortable speaking in this way on a measure that concerns the Canadian election, when I hope, anticipate, wish with all my heart, that there will be no more Canadian elections in Quebec, for it will have attained sovereignty.

I must admit that, ever since the commissions on the future of Quebec, we in Quebec have been questioning our parliamentary system because, as you all know, it is copied from the one in Ottawa, which is itself a copy of the one in merry old England.

In a sovereign Quebec, why should we preserve a parliamentary system that no doubt had its merits in centuries past but, as we approach a new century, seems particularly ill equipped to cope with new challenges, to represent this living democracy which is constantly evolving, to ensure that it is closer to the people, who will be increasingly aware of current events, to govern a population that is very much attuned to all of the social, cultural and economic dimensions involved on the floor of this House?

A new parliamentarism is therefore required, a reinvented system, a system that will be transparent to the public, which will foster their confidence through understanding. This is what the sovereign Quebec of tomorrow must be contemplating today. The restricted, yet brilliant, version of this same debate I find here in this House this evening cannot help but elicit my consent.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, my Liberal colleague asked a number of questions of the Bloc Quebecois and I had trouble refraining from giving him the answers since he was so insistent about it.

First of all, I would like to tell all my Liberal colleagues that the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of Bill C-71. It agrees with the content of the bill, barring a few exceptions. However, when a bill includes the use of means that should not be used because the end never justifies the means, it is our duty as the official opposition to point out those aspects of the bill.

You will recall that, unfortunately, debate was cut short at second reading. We probably could have drawn these aspects of the bill to the attention of Liberal members and of all Canadians if that debate had taken place. But it did not, and we are forced to raise these issues now.

So, the first major irritant is the reverse onus, which means that people will be considered guilty until they can prove their innocence. This is totally new in our justice system, and that is why it is a major irritant. As the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois cannot accept such a change of rules in our justice system.

The second irritant concerns sponsorships. It may be desirable that tobacco companies stop sponsoring various events some day, but it is not something that can be done overnight. That is the problem. The minister is telling us that if young people do not see any tobacco advertising at sporting and cultural events, they will not start smoking. I admit that it may influence them a little, but it is not their main motivation.

When I was young, many people smoked and I, myself, started to smoke. Thank God, I was able to quit later on. However, there were no sponsorships on television. This was at the beginning of television. We had black and white screens only, and there were just a few programs. But did we ever smoke. Therefore, there must be other factors that lead young people to smoke.

In fact, if the health minister is so convinced that sponsorships are one of the important factors that lead young people to start smoking, why then does he not provide a transition period in order to help sponsored events to find other sponsors? How can we

believe a minister who is not ready to invest a single penny to support his principles?

This is not grandstanding, we are only looking at the facts as they are. Without a transition period, the direct losses will amount to $60 million. As for indirect losses, they will amount to $200 million for the Montreal area, an area where there are more poor people than in all the maritimes. We are not grandstanding, we are looking at the facts. If the losses are that high, it will cause unemployment. Unemployment means poor families. Poor families mean poor children, malnutrition, a high dropout rate, health problems.

Even worse, studies show that poor families smoke more. By refusing to provide a transition period, the minister will endanger the health of those same young people he claims he wants to protect. This really is a measure the minister did not foresee the possible perverse effects of.

In fact, we must realize that the sponsored events proposed some interesting compromises to the minister but it seems that he prefers going to court, because this is sure to happen. Sponsored events and sponsors will go ahead and force the minister to go all the way to the Supreme Court and once again, in five years or more, the problem will still be with us.

I want to tell my Liberal colleague that in the health committee I myself proposed active measures aimed at the young, for example, an awareness campaign where stars popular with young people would tell them that they do not smoke to preserve their health.

Last November, I had the opportunity to discuss the bill with Mr. Rochon and I expressed my concerns. You will know that Mr. Rochon's bill has not moved a bit since then. His bill will be reviewed by cabinet because good intents are one thing, but negative impacts are another and they must also be taken into consideration. That is one of our main points. We want the bill to have maximum efficiency and we want full protection for the health of Canadians and Quebecers.

However, the clauses on sponsorship will have the effect of replacing a problem with another which might be even worse.

I have a twofold question for my colleague. First, could it be that the minister is more stubborn than convinced? Is the Minister of Health sick? Why does he not invest the money in his own budget to finance a transition period? Finally, and I would really appreciate an answer from my colleague, is the minister not afraid that the right he is assuming to decide what can or cannot be seen on television might be declared unconstitutional? Other countries tried to decide for their citizens what could and what could not be seen and we know what happened to them. I ask the member across the way if, out of sheer stubbornness, the minister is not losing sight of what is best for the health of Canadians and Quebecers?

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will now speak in English. Maybe I will be better understood by the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I appreciate whatever he is saying but obviously he did not get the point you made, that he would eventually come to the motion.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I recognize that, as usual, our colleague is brilliantly doing his thing but I think he is not speaking on the motion and therefore is out of order.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member argues that political instability is hurting the economy, but what about Team Canada's missions in countries where human rights are violated? What about these missions in countries where the political system is almost undemocratic and even in some cases totalitarian? This is going too far.

We have to tell it like it is. Federalism comes with a price that the province of Quebec has been paying for the last 150 years. Federalism comes with a price tag that has reached an unacceptable level, and sovereignty is the option supported by the province of Quebec, which is asking the rest of Canada to set up a new framework called a partnership. This framework would be particularly well defined, absolutely negotiable and would put an end to any so-called political instability.

It takes two to create instability. As long as this problem is maintained by our federalist friends, it will not go away. The only way to settle it is to opt for a partnership where the province of Quebec will become sovereign and take its responsibilities, and where Canada will do the same. Only then will we be able to face

the problems of the 21st century, instead of trying to deal with problems left over from the 19th century.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, whatever amount we cost the public purse, each of us costs exactly the same as any member of this House.

However, the money used to pay for my salary and for the operation of my office comes from my constituents who elected me with 54 per cent of the votes. That is democracy. If my hon. colleague opposite cannot respect the fact that 53 members of the Bloc were democratically elected according to the rules of this Parliament and of this Canada to whom we belong legally and constitutionally and which also govern the way he was elected himself, if there is a double standard allowing him to sit here because the rules are good for him whereas they are not good for us and we are not entitled to sit here, then he should say so and assume that Quebec would be better off forming a country of its own.

In any case, that is what we want. We are asking for it, we are waiting for you to grant it to us, and if you refuse to do so, then the people, by way of a referendum, will demand it.

[Supply, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I have never, ever, put down Canadian values. They deserve respect, but these are values that belong to the rest of Canada. Quebec has its own cultural values, as every nation has. There are no values with a capital V that are universal. Even the French have values that are different from ours. The fact that we speak the same language does not necessarily mean that we share the same values.

The Americans speak English and so do English Canadians. Do they have exactly the same values? No, there are some differences, just as there are similarities, I am sure. There are, of course, values that transcend cultures. Tolerance is one value that we share, I agree.

But when I discuss our cultural foundations and our vision with my English speaking colleagues, given their cultural baggage, they sometimes see certain values differently than I do. This difference is normal and natural, and I respect it.

What I ask is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to show the same respect and stop stubbornly spending tens of millions of dollars on eliminating these differences. The richness of our respective cultures would suffer. These differences must remain. We must remain who we are. We must develop a new co-operative approach and partnership. Sovereign states sharing certain responsibilities seems like a modern alternative to the old approach that does not work.

Earlier, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine indicated how prosperous a country Canada was. You must agree with me that, for a time, Canada did seem to be a prosperous country, but that was only because of endless borrowing, resulting in this accumulated debt we have today, totalling approximately $600 billion. Any country ill-advised enough to accumulate such a huge debt would become the best place in the world to live in.

At present, in all our ridings, and I am sure this situation exists in Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine as well, some people can barely afford three square meals a day. There are children who go to school hungry. This country we call Canada is not the best place in the world to live in for these people. Such situations should not exist.

During that time, approximately $100 million was spent on trying to swallow up Quebec's culture. That is a waste of time and money and, more importantly, it is money that would be better spent helping the most disadvantaged in our society.

I think I have made my point. The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will certainly agree with me that there are people in his riding who could use this money.