Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from the NDP for her excellent speech.

Sometimes the truth can be shocking and the hon. member spoke the truth that really needed to be brought out. All of the issues she mentioned are being talked about by the general public, and we should open up the debate so the ordinary people can make themselves heard.

How do the hon. members from the Alliance feel about this? The hon. members on the benches of power are quiet; that is certainly a surprise. When you hear someone crying wolf, it is not always wise to trust them.

I would like to ask the hon. member to elaborate on her claims with regard to the price of gasoline. I am in complete agreement with her because, in Quebec, 99% of the gasoline tax is invested in highway improvements. The federal tax includes an excise tax of 10¢ and a special tax of 1.5¢ to pay down the deficit, and there is also the GST, not one cent of which goes toward improving the highway system, even though the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has asked that $15 billion be invested over the next 10 years.

I would like to hear her comments on this.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the same committee and I complained to the commissioner of competition that there has been collusion. Do you know how the commissioner answered? He told me that according to the law, there had to be oral or written evidence for him to be able to launch an investigation. That is an old-fashioned notion. The hon. members know that today things can be done through the Internet and in many other ways.

This bill has to be updated. The concept of oral and written evidence has to be updated. This legislation has got to have more teeth. Moreover, it is based on a report from the Conference Board, and we know that the oil companies sit on that board, that they are judge and jury. There are many more things to say on this subject and I think we will have another chance to debate it.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Champlain. What he is describing is a case in point; it has led to a parliamentary committee being set up to hear witnesses.

Someone in my riding, namely Claude Girard, who used to be a retailer, the director of the Corporation des camionneurs en vrac de la région 02 affiliated with the Association nationale des camionneurs artisans, testified before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology that there is a lot of collusion. He said he received calls, saying ,“All of you will be increasing your prices at the same time”.

That is what he told us parliamentarians. The Minister of Industry, who has responsibility for the Competition Bureau, has said repeatedly that gasoline is a provincial jurisdiction. As far as I know, he is the one responsible for the administration of the Competition Act. I maintain that their commissioner of competition does not have all the tools he needs to enforce the Competition Act.

Under section 10 of the Competition Act, the Minister of Industry could tell the commissioner he is giving him the necessary powers, and the commissioner could initiate a study. This study must not be conducted by anyone sitting on a committee looking into fuel prices. It should be handled by an independent committee which would look at what the fuel prices issue is all about. The minister will not have it.

That is what has got people talking. It is true that we are not supposed to say this, but I say it: there is collusion in this whole business. The Minister of Industry must take his responsibilities and allow an independent study into what is going on with fuel prices.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yes, that is true. I will admit that government members can make improvements. However, I would also like it if government members could return the favour. Often, opposition members move amendments in committee, but because the amendment comes from the opposition, the government rejects any improvements.

Yes, I agree with him and I, too, would like to thank the member for Edmonton Southwest. It is true and I said so at the beginning of my comments.

However, I would like it—and I am happy that you raised this issue—if you could also be open to what we propose in order to ensure that legislation remains grounded in the reality of the constituents that we are here to defend.

[Lobbyists Registration Act, June 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-15, an act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act. The purpose of this bill was to more clearly define lobbying, to reinforce various provisions in the Lobbyists Registration Act and also to simplify registration requirements.

The bill makes no substantial amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act, despite the amendment currently before the House. This amendment originates in the Senate and is in keeping with what the Bloc Quebecois had proposed. The Bloc Quebecois filibustered for quite some time in order to get this amendment included in the bill.

I pay tribute to the senators, whose amendment reads as follows:

1. Page 4, clause 4: Add immediately after line 15 the following:

“(h.1) if the individual is a former public office holder, a description of the offices held;”

This Senate amendment respects what the Bloc Quebecois has been saying since this bill was first introduced. Where we particularly fault the Lobbyists Registration Act is that the concept of intensity of lobbying has been dropped from it.

The amendment does not give us any idea of the intensity of the lobbying of the Government of Canada, such as the amount lobbyists receive in fees, or the positions of the people they lobby.

In reality, what we wanted from this bill—when we talk about improving control of lobbying activities on Parliament Hill and in departments—is to know how intense the lobbying is and anything related to this intensity; in other words, the lobbyists' ability to influence major decision-makers whether it be senior officials or ministers themselves.

Who are the lobbyists? I think they have become an urban legend. People still wonder what a lobbyist is. In this bill we would have liked to see a clear definition of what a lobbyist is and what ability they have to influence decisions. We would have liked these definitions to be included in the bill and presented to the House of Commons.

That is the most important thing. What is the relationship between this lobbyist and the government, certain government representatives, MPs, ministers or deputy ministers? That is what is important. Let us not forget that this is a bill on lobbyists. I would have liked to see a clear and unambiguous definition of the term lobbyist.

However, we are left unsatisfied, as with most bills the government introduces. We, the opposition parties, go to committees to try to improve the bills that are proposed to us. When we attend committee to discuss a bill, we try to give the government a sense of how the average citizen feels about such a bill and determine what impact this bill will have on people's daily life. That is the opposition's role. That is what all Bloc Quebecois members set out to do in committee. We do not see members of the governing party in committee very often.

Most of the time, we have quorum because of the opposition members. They are the best attenders; they are the ones who raise questions along the lines of “What does he mean by that? Why this provision in this bill? What does this mean for the average person?”

This bill, with a clear definition of lobbyist, would have reassured a lot of people. All of a sudden, when the topic of lobbyists comes up,—you know how it is—people wonder what the term means. They imagine something dark and shadowy, something done behind the scenes, in darkened rooms. People do not know what lobbyists do, and what their connection is with the decision makers. These are the sorts of things people wonder about.

That is where the public should have been given some reassurance, so that they could look forward to some transparency in government. One wonders whether this government even knows the definition of transparency.

When we were young, we used transparent tracing paper in order to practice good writing, and in order to keep a copy of what we had done. Today, however, with this government, I would certainly hesitate to say that transparency is the order of the day.

In June 2000, the Bloc Quebecois tabled a dissenting report on the Lobbyists Registration Act. This report set out the principles that should be respected when amending the act. These were very clear principles, and aimed at ensuring transparency. Unfortunately, there are times people need to have the mirror turned back on themselves so they can see their true nature. When we see our definition reflected in the mirror, we see what others see in it, which we cannot if the mirror is directed elsewhere.

With these amendments, the Bloc Quebecois would have liked to have seen included in this bill a provision for lobbyists to disclose their meetings with a minister or senior official, and specify the department concerned. This is important.

When I came to Parliament Hill six years ago, I was surprised to see how many lobbyists there were. Most of the time I ran into them just by chance. I wondered whether they were also MPs, or just what they were. Everyone was after me, asking questions, approaching me to discuss this or that issue. You know, where I come from, in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, we all know each other. Here, however, I could not tell who was who.

But I have learned that here on Parliament Hill, there are all kinds of lobbyists in all areas. I often see them going to eat with members. You do not talk about the weather when you dine with a lobbyist who specializes in a certain area; you may talk about gas pricing if the lobbyist works for an oil company, or he or she may represent pharmaceutical companies. They all do lobbying for big corporations.

I have seen a lot of them. I thought it would be good if I knew who they were. If they had been listed in a registry, I would have liked that.

In June 2000—three years ago now—the Bloc Quebecois also recommended that lobbyists disclose how much money was spent on their lobbying campaigns. It is still a very grey area. Certainly this bill would improve matters, but I would have liked it to be even more transparent.

The Bloc Quebecois also recommended that consultant lobbyists and in-house lobbyists disclose their fees. This is important. I heard witnesses before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology tell us, “How do you expect us to do that? We do not know exactly how much time we spend on a given file. It would involve far too many calculations”. That is part of transparency.

Perhaps they enjoy what they do and they work to further a cause. I do not think that all the work they do is bad, quite the opposite. As parliamentarians, we cannot specialize in every area. It is legitimate that they meet with us.

They share their vision with us and we can discuss with them. I have nothing against that. I have no problem with that, unlike what goes on behind closed doors.

Also, the Bloc Quebecois recommended that a provision explicitly prohibiting any sort of conditional fee, regardless of the activity performed, be included in the bill. That is another major element.

The Bloc Quebecois recommended that consultant lobbyists as well as in-house lobbyists be required to disclose the positions they have held and corresponding periods of employment in a federal administration or political party; unpaid executive positions with political parties; the number of hours of volunteer work done for a party, a leadership candidate or riding association, when in excess of 40 hours per year; terms served as elected representatives at the federal level; election campaigns in which they ran unsuccessfully; and contributions to the various parties and candidates.

In this respect, it would be extremely important to know how much they are contributing to political parties. We know that, at the federal level, there are such things as slush funds. I look forward to the political financing bill being passed, as imperfect as it may be. It is modeled after the legislation passed by the Government of Quebec under the late René Lévesque. It ensures transparency and provides a legislative framework allowing elected representatives not to be bound by the power of the purse.

When I was young, my mother would tell me, “Money is good as long as it is used in a constructive manner. It can be as dirty as it can be good”. I would have liked these lobbyists to include in their reports the amounts donated to political parties, or to individuals for running in a leadership race or an election, or campaigning in their ridings.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are committed to the legislative framework put in place by René Lévesque, which provided that any source of money must be disclosed, because such is our will as a political party. Still, we cannot receive more than $3,000 from businesses, and there is also a cap on donations by individuals.

That is what we ought to have seen in this bill on lobbyists; the obligation to disclose the amounts of money they give to politicians' election campaigns.

Today, I was surprised to find that my popularity rating is lower than that of a used car salesman. Finding that out is quite a blow to our egos. Nevertheless, I think that we could have used this bill to improve our popularity with the public. I think that this is what the public wanted. I think it is terrible that government did not agree to include this amendment in the bill.

In addition, the Bloc recommended in June 2001—two years later—that the conflict of interest code for public office holders should become a statutory instrument, and that it should be reviewed by a committee of the House of Commons, so as to avoid any abuses. In that way, the post-employment restrictions on holders of public office, if discussed in committee, would be subject to sanctions in cases of violation.

The issue was to know whether this legislation would really help us attain our objectives. This is not just about allowing the House of Commons to appoint an independent ethics commissioner. It is also about giving that commissioner regulations with some teeth to enforce.

It is all very well to have beautiful icing on a wonderful cake, but when the icing is removed, there are sometimes some big surprises. This should have been in the legislation so that the ethics commissioner had regulations with some teeth to enforce.

Sometimes, people are granted powers, but they are not provided with the means to be transparent. We would have liked this to be included in the bill too.

Quebec has legislation regulating lobbyists, and this government would have done well to look to it as an example, particularly with regard to various points that the Bloc Quebecois has also mentioned.

Quebec's legislation on lobbyists is very specific with regard to transparency and ethics. It does not require disclosure of each meeting with public servants and ministers but, in their return, lobbyists must disclose the nature of the duties of the person they have communicated with or intend to communicate with, as well as the institution where this individual works.

The current federal legislation requires only the disclosure of the name of the government department or agency. Why does this legislation not go further? The names and duties of all those individuals met should be included in the registry.

Quebec's legislation states that consultant lobbyists must disclose the value intervals, less than $10,000, $10,000 to $50,000 and so forth, to indicate what they receive for lobbying. There is nothing about this in the bill currently before us. It is a legislative framework that imposes guide posts.

In terms of prohibiting any form of conditional fees, Quebec's legislation states that no consultant lobbyist or enterprise lobbyist may act in return for compensation that is contingent on the achievement of a result or the lobbyist's degree of success. This legislation is very specific with regard to a number of very sensitive issues related to lobbying. But in the government's proposed bill, no such specifics are provided.

In terms of the disclosure by consultant lobbyists or in-house lobbyists of the positions held or corresponding employment periods, indicated in Quebec's legislation, no such mention is made in the federal legislation.

In Quebec, consultant lobbyists have to indicate in their initial return the nature and term of any public office they held in the two years preceding the date on which they were engaged by the client. As for organization lobbyists and enterprise lobbyists—referring to electoral agencies—they must disclose the nature and term of any public office they held in the two years preceding the date on which they were engaged by the enterprise or group of any public office they held. This bill contains no such provisions.

To conclude, it must also be said that this bill is an improvement. Yes, it must be acknowledged. However, I often tell my constituents in the riding of Jonquière that the process for passing legislation is very long. It is excessively long at times. Often, when we pass legislation we are already behind in terms of meeting society's needs.

I would have liked this bill to be proactive and open-minded. There is so much new technology and what is new today is obsolete tomorrow. I would have liked to see more foresight in this bill because it will a long time before new lobbyist legislation is drafted again. We will always be behind the times and that is why legislation to ensure transparency must be passed to protect people.

[Softwood Lumber, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state's measures to promote economic diversification do nothing to help the 450 workers at Laterrière right now. Retraining them for another sector is fine and dandy, but what they need if they want to get their old jobs back is a loan guarantee for the cooperative.

Why is this government, which is so out of touch with reality, stubbornly refusing a solution that costs so little, yet is so right and obvious?

[Softwood Lumber, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, while softwood lumber companies are announcing layoffs and a slowdown of their activities, the secretary of state for regional development is selling his program for economic diversification. Workers in the softwood lumber sector do not want to change sectors, as the minister is proposing. They want to get their jobs back, that is all.

Four hundred and fifty forestry workers from the Coopérative forestière de Laterrière in my riding lost their jobs and want to get them back.

Does the minister not understand that what the cooperative needs, more than anything else, is a loan guarantee to allow it to resume its activities and rehire its workers?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 27th, 2003]

Thousands of them, as my colleague said. There is nothing in the budget to address this, to reimburse the women and seniors who were eligible for the guaranteed income supplement but did not receive it. There is nothing in this budget for them. The government would rather challenge it in court.

There is also nothing to improve infrastructure. As we know, the budget invests an additional $1 billion in municipal infrastructure over the next ten years. The Union des municipalités du Québec had estimated municipal infrastructure needs at over $1 billion per year for the next fifteen years, in Quebec alone. That is what it estimated, but there is only an additional $1 billion over the next ten years. The government then says that it is responding, that it is attuned to the needs of municipalities and that it wants to hold direct negotiations with them, when we all know that municipalities are creatures of the provincial governments.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities estimated the needs of all urban centres in Canada at over $50 billion. No need to mention that the federal government's offer is a very cold—if not ice-cold—shower for everyone who had hoped for improvements to urban infrastructure.

The day after the budget was brought down by the federal Minister of Finance, the chair of the executive committee of the City of Montreal, Frank Zampino, stated that, considering the needs of the City of Montreal for infrastructure renewal, which would cost quite a bit, the government's contribution was quite insufficient. That $1 billion divided by ten years—for all of Canada—becomes $100 million per year, divided by four—as 25% of the population lives in Quebec—means that Quebec will get $25 million. That is peanuts, given that a simple highway, such as the one through the Parc des Laurentides, in Quebec, cost $650 million.

I am anxious to see when the Minister of Industry will sign the agreement with the Government of Quebec that was announced more than a year ago. It still has not been signed and the minister still does not know when he will sign it. In any case, I am anxious to see when he will sign the agreement, because it is important to my region. My entire region expressed a desire to have this road in the Parc des Laurentides. There is nothing in this budget. He still has not signed it.

The current Minister of Finance earmarked $25 million a year in this budget for infrastructure, but this is a drop in a sea of needs. This is a serious situation because everyone always says there are problems with health care, the population is aging, health needs are growing exponentially and we do not know how to stop them. When we have reached a point when we are not investing any money to improve sewer and water supply systems, this is serious. As we know, there is a connection between health and good drinking water, and between health and everything that affects air quality.

A few years ago, an article in the Globe & Mail revealed that my region had the highest level of pollution. Studies were done and it was found that this was not true. However, with everything that is happening in the environment, our regions are increasingly polluted. Pollution causes more and more people to become ill. There is nothing in this budget to improve the environment.

There is nothing in this budget. There are some things to make their little friends happy, the people with the highest incomes. That is who the government is aiming at with this budget. Last weekend, there was even a debate among the three candidates who want to replace the current Prime Minister at the head of the Liberal Party of Canada. For once, I was happy to listen to the Minister of Canadian Heritage since she was criticizing what is going on. She spoke out against—and I quote:

—the amalgamation of education, health and social spending dollars to the provinces by Mr. Martin in 1995, which led to the elimination of the Canada assistance plan, the worst thing that our government has ever done.

That is not very high praise, but that was what the Minister of Canadian Heritage said. She is not a sovereignist. Far from it; quite the opposite; she is a major-league federalist. This is a Liberal minister criticizing her own party, her own government. I believe her because she would never have said that unless she knew it was true, since she is a member of cabinet. And she is critical.

This budget pays no attention to people who are suffering, to women, senior citizens, municipalities, the unemployed, the homeless. It is much ado about nothing; it creates needs but provides no long-term solutions. This budget gives to the rich and steals from the poor. It does nothing to improve health care. It is a dog's breakfast.

I will never, ever, support such a simplistic vision. I would have thought that the new Minister of Finance would have some compassion, that he would stick to real needs and that his vision would be different from that of the former Minister of Finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard. But they are both the same. It is the same exercise all over again. The rich get all kinds of things and the poor, who have real needs, get nothing.

If there are people who say that this budget will do something, they are showing their ignorance. I will never support a budget like this, that ignores the real needs of ordinary people.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2003, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on the budget tabled by the current Minister of Finance in February.

I will tell everyone listening why the members of the Bloc Quebecois, including myself, will not support this budget.

We will oppose the budget because it does not meet the real concerns and expectations of Quebeckers. What did Quebeckers ask the new Minister of Finance for, which should have been included in his budget? First, they asked that the fiscal imbalance which has been condemned be corrected.

There is and has been much talk about this. In Quebec, we have had the Séguin commission, which has tabled its report. This study concluded that there is a fiscal imbalance and it has been endorsed by the premiers of all the other provinces, who agreed that such an imbalance exists, that the federal government is collecting too much in taxes and raking in huge surpluses. Second, these huge surpluses escape scrutiny by parliamentarians. As a result, nothing is being done to correct the imbalance.

Also, there is nothing in this budget about establishing an independent employment insurance fund. For years, the Bloc Quebecois has been asking that the government establish, in conjunction with all the central labour bodies and workers in Quebec, a genuine independent EI fund administered jointly by workers and employers.

It is unacceptable that the surplus in the EI fund today, in 2003, is $44 billion. What is the government doing with that money? The Secretary of State responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec referred to a virtual amount. This is a serious matter. We are talking about money that belongs to workers and employers. I call it an employment tax. This means that the government collected far more money than it had to and hid it God knows where. It means that now working Canadians and Quebeckers are being required to pay premiums higher than necessary to meet the needs of the fund. There is nothing about that in this budget.

Second, there is nothing for the wind power industry. We know that with the Kyoto protocol comes the need to favour renewable energies. Changes will be required in our management in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Quebec saw fit to invest heavily in this new energy. I think it is important that we do, but there is nothing about that in the budget.

Furthermore, in this budget there is no mention of abolishing the special tax of 1.5¢ per litre of gas that was introduced by the former Minister of Finance. This tax was meant to pay down the debt and eliminate the deficit. There has not been a deficit since 1995, and there is no indication that the tax will be abolished. What are they doing with this money? We do not know. It is another hidden tax.

We are also told that the airport security tax will be abolished. This is a tax was introduced by the former Minister of Finance for security in airports. The current Minister of Finance asked two independent firms to conduct studies to determine the income generated by this tax compared to the expenses incurred by tightening security in the airports. Based on the findings, there was a $43 million surplus.

What did this do? This tax increased the price of airline tickets, which penalizes the regions, once again. Money is taken from the regions and invested in large cities.

A return ticket from Bagotville to Ottawa costs me $900 to $1,000, and I buy one once a week. This is unacceptable. How can we expect people in the regions to use this mode of transportation? It is an essential mode of transportation for people who have no other way to get to meetings and to work, like me. I have to go to work. The general public cannot afford to pay such a price for an airline ticket.

This tax increased the price of airline tickets. We said there was no need for this and that the money should have come from the budget. Nonetheless, the tax was introduced in order to take in even more money.

Also, there is nothing in the budget to abolish useless programs and thereby decrease spending by several billions of dollars. We know that the government is very good at encroaching on provincial jurisdictions.

Yesterday evening, when I came out of the debate on mad cow disease, I met some ordinary people who told me they are always the ones who have to pay, always the same taxpayers. There are school taxes, provincial taxes, municipal taxes, federal taxes, but the taxpayers are always the same. If they knew their tax money was going to the right things, they would have no objections to paying.

But we know that the federal government of today is always trying to encroach into areas where it has no business being. The Constitution says it is not their area of jurisdiction, so why does it insist? For visibility. Its obsession with visibility drives it to use funds that could be used elsewhere. On what? In essential areas, which this budget could have included. They could have been used to help the real people who have been shunted aside in this budget. They could have been used for the needs of women, aboriginal people, the elderly, self-employed workers. As well, they should also have been used for the softwood lumber crisis.

When the Minister for International Trade gets up to speak, he always says everything is great, everything is just wonderful in connection with softwood lumber, and we are going to win. We are going to win, but there will not be many people around to celebrate when we do. In my region, the one most affected by the softwood lumber crisis, there will be no workers left. The sawmills will have closed and our communities will have been decimated.

In my region, there are some small communities that owe their existence to the work provided by the sawmills. Today, however, they are waiting impatiently. They have reached the stage of no longer believing this government will respond to their needs and keep its commitment to move on to phase two of its softwood lumber assistance plan. How else could they feel? There is no mention of it in the budget, no mention of phase two, and that is where action must be taken.

And what is being done for women? I find this unacceptable. This government is doing nothing. Quebec would like to create its own parental insurance program. When will this government start negotiating with the Government of Quebec in order to reach an agreement that will allow the creation of this Quebec parental insurance fund?

This fund would help women. It would provide insurance for self-employed women and those with seasonal employment. At present, things are no so good for women who work and want to have children. They say to themselves, “I am going to have a child”. These days, both the man and the woman in a couple work; this is no longer a luxury. This is how they manage to stick to a budget and provide for their family's welfare.

So, this fund would be a good thing. The women of Quebec called for it, and the former Government of Quebec agreed to it. It wanted to do it. Quebec asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development to take the money from the employment insurance fund, to take the premiums that went toward EI, and transfer this money to the provinces. This would provide for a fund that would allow women to receive 75% of their salary when they take parental leave.

The Minister of Finance made no mention of it in his budget. It would allow women to have children under much better and easier conditions. The budget contains no such measures.

There are no tax measures for seniors, whether for pensions or old age pensions. This, despite the fact that we know that incomes for this segment of the population are declining steadily, and since women make up more than half of this population, they are the ones who suffer.

Of course, there is the guaranteed income supplement that my colleague, the member for Champlain, criticized, and which was updated. Hundreds of women and seniors—again, most of whom are women—were deprived of the guaranteed income supplement for years—

[Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, May 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part this evening in this extremely important debate. I want to thank the leader of the Progressive Conservatives for having asked for this emergency debate, because it is extremely important for Canada and Quebec.

The priority for the Bloc Quebecois in this matter is to protect the public and preserve the confidence of our trading partners.

The solution to this crisis does not lie in centralization, but rather in adopting a more regional approach to health practices.

Although a single case of mad cow has been diagnosed in Canada, all the provinces were included in the ban by our foreign partners. The U.S. ban on all ruminants is particularly damaging, because that country is our main buyer.

Although the Bloc Quebecois considers the Americans' decision to be reasonable at this stage in the testing, we believe that it would be unfair for this ban to continue and to be applied to provinces not affected.

The Bloc Quebecois notes, as my hon. colleague from Drummond said, that if Quebec were sovereign and controlled its own borders and its own health policies, it would not be affected by the U.S. ban today. The president of the UPA, Mr. Laurent Pellerin, said the exact same thing during a press conference on May 22, 2003:

If we were separate provinces each with its own distinct inspection system and if we had a more regional approach to product marketing systems, only one province would have to deal with this problem.

This situation is particularly frustrating for Quebec producers who have long been subject to a series of constraints aimed at ensuring herd health and irreproachable product quality.

So, for many years, not only have they not imported any products from countries considered “at risk” for mad cow disease, but the detection process for cases of mad cow has been implemented and, in Quebec, mandatory reporting of this disease has existed since 1990. Since 1993, Quebec producers have been prohibited from feeding animal meal to their cattle, well before the federal ban of 1997.

I want to give the House a conclusive example of the superiority of Quebec's system: cattle tagging. Implanting cattle with tags for tracking purposes was established simultaneously in Canada and Quebec. Quebec producers had until June 2002 to tag their cattle.

I will tell the House the difference between the establishment of this practice in Quebec and in Canada. In Quebec, there is a centralized database, but not in Canada.

In Quebec, we collect information on all the comings and goings of an animal: birth, death, participation in an agricultural exhibition, sale to a breeder. This is all done with bar codes. So, when the consumer buys beef at the grocery store, there is a bar code on the packaging, the same one that has followed the animal from birth right up to the consumer's plate. In Canada, they keep information on birth and death only. The animal is not followed throughout its life span. The advantage of what is done in Quebec is clear. It is far superior.

Given the existence of a highly efficient system of prevention in Quebec, the federal government must do everything within its area of jurisdiction to reassure importing countries so Quebec producers can resume exports.

In the weeks to come, once the federal authorities have established the diagnosis and we have a better idea of the scope of the crisis, the Bloc Quebecois will ensue that the new measures implemented in order to regain the confidence of our partners will not be imposed coast to coast. In short, different regions of the country have different practices and must therefore be handled differently.

The federal government has neglected food safety in the last 10 years by neglecting to replace staff at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and by threatening the funding of faculties of veterinary medicine.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency was created in 1997 in a consolidation of the food safety and inspection components of three federal departments: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Health Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada. The objective was to facilitate a more uniform and consistent approach to food safety and quality standards and to food product inspection according to risk level. The agency does not have sole responsibility for food safety, but it is at the heart of the Canadian food safety system.

The CFIA estimated it was “short 500 staff positions across all of the Agency's inspection programs”, according to chapter 25 of the December 2000 Auditor General's report. The CFIA has a serious staff recruitment problem.

In 2000, the agency estimated that by 2006, 734 employees would be eligible to retire, including 33% of the veterinary science group and 29% of the inspector group. The Auditor General stated, “The agency has already experienced some difficulty in recruiting for some positions”.

The Auditor General added, and I quote:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency should take additional action to identify what it needs in a future work force and to develop a plan for creating the work force that it needs to deliver its mandate in the future. The Agency should measure employees' views on whether Agency values are fully practiced.

The federal government has not done its part to compensate workers in the softwood lumber industry affected by the trade dispute between Canada and the United States. My riding is the most heavily affected region in Canada. And, in addition, we are still waiting for federal government assistance for workers affected by the cod moratorium and the crab dispute.

The Bloc Quebecois finds it ironic that the United States is imposing an embargo on Quebec meat when certain American states are closer to Alberta than Quebec. As long as we are a part of the federal system, we will have to live with this kind of paradox.

Here is a brief list of the federal government's responsibilities. First, it must support cattle producers affected by the crisis, as it helped Toronto with the SARS crisis. It must also examine Quebec's practices, which are effective, thanks in large part to its tracking system that is more effective than the federal system. Third, it must ensure that farmers from provinces with higher standards, such as Quebec, are exempt from the American embargo. It must defend the interests of cattle producers. Fourth, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food comes from Quebec, from the riding of Portneuf; he needs to get the message out and ensure that Quebec is not affected by the lower standards put in place by the federal government.

The federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food must act quickly to restore confidence in our cattle products. This is what the minister must do, while continuing to assess and analyze whether mad cow disease has spread to other herds.