Denis Coderre

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the true face of the Bloc. People will notice that, apart from personal attacks, no solution was brought here. Besides exchanging the flag of Canada for a fleur de lys, not much was said since the beginning.

I have a question to ask based on a quotation. In the Saturday, March 13 edition of Le Soleil there was a report entitled “Quebec Games, a Flag Flap. Quebec prefers to pay rather than accept Ottawa's partnership”. Apparently, the Government of Quebec had paid the tidy sum of $200,000 to prevent the federal government's presence during the Quebec Games in Trois-Rivières.

This was not revealed by a politician but by the games' director general, Mr. Réjean Tremblay.

These lackeys are playing holier than thou and claiming that members on this side are big bad wolves, but from the beginning they have been levelling personal attacks against us.

I would like the very famous member for Lotbinière—who, perhaps this time will know what he is talking about—to comment on the statement made by the Jeux du Québec's director general, Mr. Réjean Tremblay.

Does he agree? Is he happy to know that the mother house in Quebec City decided to buy off the games in order to keep out the maple leaf?

Is he in agreement with this decision?

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. The member for Lotbinière has insinuated that certain people contribute to campaign funds and this reflects on me. This is a question of honour and I ask that the member withdraw what he said.

If we had to start looking at all the money spent by the Bloc Quebecois, we would have plenty to say. I raise the question of privilege because it is unacceptable to say things like that. They are not only indulging in petty politics at the expense of athletes but they do not even know the issues they are talking about.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem debating ideas in this House, but we have heard too many personal attacks and falsehoods since the beginning of this debate.

Yes, it is true that I often talk publicly about professional sport, but I always talk about amateur sport as well. I ask the member to withdraw his remarks because he said that I only talk about professional sport.

[Quebec Model, June 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Lucien Bouchard has decided to play tough in recent days. Now he is usurping the notion of the Quebec model in the name of his political party. Worse still, he is also appropriating the definition of Quebec's identity.

The Quebec model was not established by the separatists. It was established by Quebecers themselves. They are also the ones who toiled away in recent decades to build a modern Quebec within Canada.

The Quebec model is not that proposed by the separatists, who are now sending patients to the United States for care. The Quebec model is not the one proposed by the separatists, where groups of individuals they do not want in the definition of a Quebecer are excluded.

The Quebec model is the one Quebecers want for themselves; the means they want to put in place to develop and improve their regions, their country, Canada and their outlook on the world. This is the model people want.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is not the first time that I complain. Way back when I talked to the commissioner. If the files do not reflect that, that is another matter, but I will check.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

the poor martyrs opposite are whining. If only they listened, it would help them.

What I have to say is helpful to me also, because it will help Canadians see who is serious about this issue. I will simply say that yes, we do think there is a language issue here.

Yes, we also think there are all manner of problems, but that is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

We are aware of what they are up to as compared to what we are trying to do. We really want to work toward solutions and solve problems. From the start, they have tried to use personal attacks and demagoguery. They have tried to say that the sport millionaires contribute to slush funds. I do not know what funds they are referring to, or which sport millionaires. Answers to those questions are needed.

For us on this side of the House, what is important is to work together and to continue the good work. Of the 69 recommendations, 53 have been accepted. Looking at all of the parliamentary committees, this was a relatively inexpensive one, costing only $15,000, yet it attracted a great many people and triggered a public debate. That is what is important to us.

There are some people over there who have been carrying on about this, like the hon. member for Témiscamingue, who has been at it for some time now, telling us that we do nothing but speak of professional sport. Unlike the people on the other side, I have no need to backtrack on what I have said. Right from the start I said that we needed to focus on amateur and professional sport, because this is an industry that brings in $9 billion and is responsible for 260,000 jobs and 1.1% of the gross domestic product.

We are not going to put our heads in the sand, not like Lucien Bouchard. At one point he said “It is unthinkable that we would help the Expos, but, on the other hand, maybe it is a good thing because now the federal election is over. So, when it comes down to it, we will put in $160 million”. People will be in a position to judge who has the greater credibility in this matter.

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is extremely easy for me to praise someone like Jean-Guy Ouellet, who dedicated his whole life to amateur sport and who worked tirelessly including—and this is for the information of the member for Longueuil—in university volleyball. He was also a referee.

We discussed these issues. Instead of going on tours, I deal with the issue. When we worked together, including at the Canadian university volleyball championship, we discussed this sort of thing.

I did indeed apply pressure regarding official languages. These are issues. However, contrary to members opposite, I looked for solutions and alternatives.

By contrast, what members across the floor decided to do—

[Supply, June 7th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I find it regrettable that members of the Bloc are trying to get some credibility at our athletes' expense. Not only that, but we saw from their speeches that they do not have the depth, passion and credibility of the member for Rimouski—Mitis, whom we miss.

I have been working on this issue for two years. Contrary to those who are trying to score political points because they have yet to make a breakthrough in this House, I have met individually with each and every Canadian and Quebec federation, and when we are able to meet them all together, I challenge those members who are trying to score political points to find out who those people want as representatives.

Last week, I was at the general meeting of the Fédération du patinage de vitesse du Québec, which took place at the Auberge des Gouverneurs in Sainte-Foy. Some people there told me “Mr. Coderre, you don't want to get involved in flag flaps. You really work for athletes and we acknowledge the fact that your government has already given its support to 53 recommendations out of 69”. This is an important point.

While some members are trying to make political hay at the expense of professional sports, athletes will be judge and jury and will understand. The Bloc is taking a position against professional sport. One individual, by the name of Lucien Bouchard, got involved in the Expos situation. The first thing he said was “I will never invest in professional sport. I will never invest in Montreal's Expos. This is inhuman. This does not make sense”.

Several months later, the head office—I am not talking about the valets—said “Okay, we will give between $7 million and $8 million a year for 20 years”. Not a tax abatement but a direct contribution amounting to some $160 million, because the head office understood that professional sport is an industry which generates revenues of $300 million and represents 35,000 jobs.

I will stop talking about professional sport, because they have understood nothing.

The hon. member for Témiscamingue mentioned sports fans and open lines. However, when there is a serious problem in sport issues, do experienced sports columnists, people who gave their life for amateur sport or for sports in general, ask themselves “What will the Bloc do about it?” People would be more inclined to say: “All the Bloc wants is to create winning conditions for a new referendum”.

People want to talk to the hon. member for Bourassa, to my friend, the chairman of the Sub-committee on the Study of Sport in Canada, and to my friend, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier. What does that mean? That means a very precise thing: the Bloc tried once again to make some political hay on sports. The hon. member for Témiscamingue predicted that the report would die after only 48 hours, but we are still talking about it. Then the Bloc Quebecois decided to raise the issue of sports in the hope of scoring a few points.

I want to talk about specific and important issues. I will not talk about the Bloc, but about amateur sport and especially about athletes. It is true that opposition parties did not support all of the report. They would have liked to go further on some recommendations. However, one thing is certain. Those who predicted that the subcommittee's report would be stillborn, who today are trying to make some political hay with it, failed to grasp one thing, that the subcommittee's report is the first one in 30 years to examine the whole future of sports in Canada. That is my first point.

The second point is that the report on sport is the beginning of a process. This means it will take some time. This means we will be talking about the sport issue. The separatists tried to produce a minority report and to throw their venom at us. We decided to take a stand on amateur sport. We decided to take a stand for athletes, because it is true there are problems.

It is because this government followed through with our demands that we demonstrated once and for all that we, on this side of the House, want to work in the interests of athletes.

Some things must be done about taxation. Instead of making personal attacks, as does the hon. member for Longueuil, who is trying to score points because she has not yet made a breakthrough in the House, Bloc members should have suggested some alternatives. In this report, which they have rejected outright, there are things that are extremely important; so much so that the finance minister decided to follow up by planning consultations at prebudget committee level for the next budget.

While they are trying to wage flag wars to campaign for the referendum and to create the winning conditions, we have decided to see the associations. Do we think people at Sports Québec will fall in love with this gang on the other side? Who do they come to talk to when there is a problem and when they want not only to send a message but also to find a solution? It is not to the gang on the other side. Let us be serious. They talk to my colleague, they talk to me, they talk to the minister and to the parliamentary secretary.

If we have proven to be sensitive to this issue, and if we have established our credibility and our intellectual honesty, it is because we have decided to take a stand on certain issues. We heard remarks a while ago about the Canadian Olympic Association. I am one of the instigators of the boycott of the last movie, which was in English only and produced by Americans. Guess what? Not a single senator, not a single member of parliament on this side went to see this movie, because we all know this is a bilingual country and there is problem here that needs to be dealt with.

If this does not demonstrate our sensitivity and our concern for both official languages in amateur sport, I fail to see what could do it.

Secondly, it is obvious that we need to bring forward a new approach to our tax system. This excellent report presents a blueprint for our society to improve the social, economic, political and environmental quality of life.

This report makes suggestions that cannot all be implemented overnight. We have suggested alternatives. We have decided for example, to have a tax credit per child for parents with a household income of $75,000 and less. These things are important, but they have been set aside. The finance minister has decided to go ahead with prebudget consultations.

The other point, and I think it is important to mention it, is that, while they make a fuss in an attempt at flag wars, in an attempt to score points because servility is the order of the day, we came up with a very important recommendation. This recommendation provides for a sports summit.

We will recall that two years ago there was a health summit. What happened with it? In the latest budget, the most important item, the cornerstone, was health.

Therefore, if we create not only a sport summit, but one that is chaired by our Prime Minister, there is no better decision making than that. Give us time. We will work, we will send a positive message and, from that, things will certainly start moving.

I want to launch an appeal to the associations, to the federations and to the athletes. I do not care what the other side may think. What I know, for example, is that people have given us this credibility. I invite federations and athletes to tell their viewpoint and to take an active part, like the president of Sports Québec, Jean-Guy Ouellet. I want all federations to be involved in this process. It is not a matter of trying to make the referendum the cornerstone, as they are doing the other side, but they should provide the solutions, approaches and, especially, show us their importance in this matter.

We can do things together. I have no interest in swapping a maple leaf for the fleur de lys on team jerseys. That is of no interest.

This is what was said last week—and members can check it—when the Fédération de patinage de vitesse unanimously gave me its support. Its representatives said “Finally, here are politicians not involved in the flag flurry, who want to work actively for our welfare. They want to help athletes. They want to help parents”.

I invite all those who are really interested in athletes and sports, not those interested in making political points at their expense, to become fully involved in this process and to work so that together we may find a solution that is viable and meaningful, because our goal, their goal, is to work for the well-being of society.

[Julie Payette, May 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a Quebec woman has spectacularly realized a life dream.

Julie Payette, one of our own, took off on time, at 6 hours 49 minutes and 42 seconds, in the space shuttle on an important scientific mission. We were thrilled to watch her this morning readying for such an outstanding trip. We watched the successful take off with bated breath.

It took courage, skill and patience for Julie to be where she is today. We will follow her moment by moment throughout this trip, of such importance to her, of course, and Canada and Quebec.

Julie has already conveyed to young Canadians her perseverance and tenacity in achieving an objective of a lifetime.

Today, a new star appeared in the firmament. Well done, Julie.

[Division No. 425, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. They are preventing me from speaking. I too can speak while he does. I am simply following his logic—