Pauline Picard

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to name the countries that backed down, because it is the first thing I hear about this.

Secondly, I do not think that the Bloc Quebecois is fear mongering. We just want the people to know what they are eating. I think it is a very basic proposal to ask that Canadians and Quebecers be told that the food on their plates contains GMOs.

In addition, scientists at Health Canada denounced a number of things. A research scientist with the department told us that no research was being conducted at Health Canada and no researcher had been assigned to transgenic foods, because there is no money for that kind of research. This is not the Bloc Quebecois that is saying this, but a research scientist with Health Canada.

I am concerned and the people I represent are concerned as well. I just held a press conference on this issue with the member for Louis-Hébert. The people in the riding of Drummond have reacted and they too are concerned about the lack of money for research on transgenic foods. So do not tell me that I am alarmist.

I want to straighten out another fact. Time permitting, I would have liked to provide a chronology of the speeches made on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois by my colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert. It took her one year of tireless work. I could mention those made on May 14, June 11, and so on. I have that list. It took the hon. member one year of tireless work, of questions and comments. It took a great deal of patience on her part to get the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to agree to study the labelling of transgenic foods.

When someone talks to me about the goodwill shown by this government, give me a break.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

I am very happy to speak to the motion from my colleague from Louis-Hébert which says:

That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

The debate on genetic engineering has been going on for some years, mainly because the development of cloning techniques was widely reported in the media. In recent months, the public learned that genetic engineering has been extended to the food industry and that, for some years now, much of the food that ends up on our table is genetically modified, this without the public having been informed or consulted.

This raises several questions: Why are plants and foods genetically modified? Who is benefiting from that? What are the benefits to consumers? What are the effects of GMOs on health and the environment? What are the challenges for agriculture and the environment? What are the economic and trade issues? What are the social repercussions of the GMOs? What are the regulations on GMOs? And what is the position of the federal government on GMOs?

There are many questions, and I think it is only natural to ask ourselves such questions, because right now we do not know what we are eating.

Thanks to the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, we have the opportunity today to discuss those issues and to offer answers to the legitimate questions of the public. I hope to have time to provide a chronology of the speeches made by my Bloc Quebecois colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, on the GMO issue. It took her one year of hard work to finally get the chairman of the agriculture committee to agree to undertake a study on the labelling of GMOs. I congratulate my colleague on this.

What are the effects of GMOs on health? According to Health Canada, transgenic foods are not dangerous in the short term. However, there is no study on their long term effects on human health. In order to approve a transgenic product, the federal government relies on studies conducted by the companies, which it merely reviews. While the approval of new drugs may take years of in-depth study and testing, that of transgenic foods takes just a few weeks.

The federal deputy minister of health himself, speaking before a Senate committee in the spring of 1999, recognized that, at the time, the government did not have any expertise whatsoever in genetics. As he put it, “its labs are not really up to it”. How can the government guarantee the safety of these foods without adequate expertise and independent scientific studies? How can the government say that transgenic foods are not dangerous in the short term? There is currently no analysis being done.

It is also said that, because of a shortage of personnel at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, there are major shortcomings, particularly in the area of research on transgenic foods.

On September 30, 1999, 200 federal experts on food quality and safety wrote to the Minister of Health. Their letter underscored the fact that the Agency is in a conflict of interest position as it must, on the one hand, ensure that foods are harmless, while on the other hand encourage food production and export.

GMO lobbyists are very powerful. They often win over our ministers and this government because they are using GMOs for partisan purposes.

Allow me to say, because people must know, that these lobbyists often interfere, but not always to promote the health of the public. They often do for partisan purposes. Considering their contributions to election campaigns, the government prefers to ignore some situations, particularly in research on transgenic foods. Let us not delude ourselves. There is big money in GMOs. We all know what money can do. But it is often to the detriment of the public.

These federal experts wrote to the Minister of Health that they were in a conflict of interest situation. It was not an easy decision for these 200 federal government scientists to abandon their usual reserve and sign their names to such a letter, thus endangering their jobs. They were so concerned that they felt they had to speak out. These are career scientists; they know what they are talking about.

Here is what they say: “We are not testing these products ourselves. Not a single researcher in Health Canada has been assigned to genetically modified foods, because we do not have the financial resources for that kind of work, a scientist said”. Yet, these products end up on our tables. No study has been done to date, yet Health Canada states that there is no danger.

There are also concerns about food allergies. Why is it that more and more people, and especially children, have food allergies? Could it be because of the nature of what we eat? For the time being, we cannot answer this question, because there have been no studies. But there are food allergy problems.

There are also concerns about resistance to the antibiotics present in certain GMOs, because GMOs are spread in the natural environment. The EU scientific steering committee has recommended that antibiotic genes in genetically modified plants be removed because of the dangers of antimicrobial resistance for health.

Proponents of GMOs are not short of arguments. Let me go through a few and comment on them. They say that GMOs will make it possible to feed an increasing world population, in particular in developing countries. There is no shortage of food around the world; in fact, there is an overproduction. There is, however, a problem of distribution, among other things, because developing countries do not have the means to buy food produced in developed countries.

Developing countries use vast agricultural lands for primary crops, like coffee, cocoa, cotton and flax, which they sell to industrialized countries instead of using them to feed their own populations. So, these lands offer an opportunity. It is still possible to increase the yields in these countries through traditional techniques and financial support. It is worth mentioning that this government has reduced its international assistance budget.

Proponents of GMOs contend that there is no proof that those organisms represent a health risk. They may be right, but the absence of studies on the long term impact of GMOs on human and animal health as well as on plant and animal life does not prove that they are not dangerous. Yet, food containing GMOs have been sold for the last five years and the production of 42 genetically modified plants is authorised in Canada.

David Suzuki, a renowned broadcaster with a background in genetics, once said that politicians who say that GMOs are not dangerous are either liars or idiots. Countries in the European Union advocate the precautionary principle according to which, in the absence of scientific evidence, caution must be exercised to prevent potential damages from GMOs to the health and the environment.

Proponents contend that all genetically modified foods are tested in Canada. Actually, GMOs are not systematically tested. The government relies on companies who produce GMOs and simply reads their studies without any further assessment. It should be noted that new drugs are approved after long studies conducted over several years, sometimes up to ten years. This reduces risks while not eliminating them completely. GMOs used for agriculture and food production are approved very quickly, within 60 to 90 days, without any in-depth study or second assessment.

We are being told by some people that we are currently eating food containing GMOs and that there is no cause for concern. No study has been done. This is the reason why we call at least for the mandatory labelling of GMOs, so that people can choose what they want to eat.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Sit down, sit down.

[International Co-Operation, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the area of international co-operation, the last budget was a big disappointment, in spite of the expectations that had been generated.

After talking about a significant increase in the budgets for international assistance in the last throne speech, after boasting about Canada's reputation in the area of international co-operation, after announcing the debt reduction program for the poorest countries, the government has precious little to show for.

It refuses to explain how it intends to achieve the target of 0.7% of the GDP in development assistance, set by the UN.

The increase barely maintains Canada's current level of assistance at 0.27% of the GDP. The ratio was 0.42% when the Liberals took office in 1993-94.

The budget does not specify how the government will follow up on its commitment to eliminate the debt of the poorest countries in the world.

The last budget does nothing to restore Canada's reputation in the area of official development assistance.

Like many things here in this parliament, this is disappointing.

[Cloning Of Human Embryos, April 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with the public announcement that the Government of Great Britain was to give the green light to the cloning of human embryos for medical research purposes, we realize that we still do not know the federal government's intended orientation on this important issue.

Can the Minister of Health tell us if he has made any progress in his reflection on this matter, and when he will be in a position to inform us of his position on this vital issue, which is a threat to human dignity?

[Celanese, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Celanese in Drummondville is closing its doors tomorrow. Of the 310 employees who will lose their job, 55 are over 55 years of age. For them active measures are not a solution.

How can the Minister of Human Resources Development simply sit back and do nothing for these workers, who find themselves without a job, without a support program and who have contributed all their life to the employment insurance fund but have not taken a cent from it? What is she going to do for them?

[Celanese, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker:

So? So how are things, Jane? Fill me in. The way I see it, all is well Although one item I should tell. So small, so lacking in import And hardly worthy of report, The Celanese plant shut its doors, Finito, but apart from that, Just fine, just great, so worry not.

So how are things, Jane? Fill me in. Is Celanese a goner then? What can we do for all those men Laid off, to help them start again? We hardly have a cent ourselves. Tell me your version of events, I am quite shaken, truth be told. It goes like this, if you must know: Because of grants not processed right And billions gone, right out of sight, What workers feel is not delight— Betrayed, abandoned, used, more like— They want to see you take a hike, A long one, but apart from that, Just fine, just great, so worry not.

[Pierre-Alexandre Rousseau, March 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, at the Canadian freestyle skiing championships held in Mont-Gabriel, Pierre-Alexandre Rousseau from Drummondville won the individual title for moguls. He succeeds Jean-Luc Brassard, who could not compete because of a knee injury.

Following a silver medal in Bormio and a third place in the World Cup general standings, this victory puts young Pierre-Alexandre Rousseau in an excellent position for the upcoming world championships, which will be held in Blackcomb, Canada.

Here is another young Quebecer who displays this ability that people back home have of representing us so well on the international scene.

On behalf of my fellow citizens, I congratulate Pierre-Alexandre Rousseau and thank him for this great victory.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this fine question.

Yes, I believe there is no room for a two tier system. If Quebec does become sovereign one day, these conditions, the five great principles the Canada Health Act incorporated, will remain. I think we have a good health insurance plan in Canada. It also covers all of the most disadvantaged. Everyone can therefore obtain treatment without cost. It is accessible, and the care is good.

However, at the moment what we are faced with—and it is of some concern—is the famous cuts by this government to the Canada social transfer, drastic cuts, when the provinces were at a very critical point because of the increase in population aging and the increased costs of new technologies. The provinces were already in a situation of having to cut themselves in their management in order to reduce their deficits.

The biggest problem came from this Liberal government, which put the axe to the Canada social transfer, causing the provinces to now find themselves faced with desperate needs in terms of the sick and of income security. Cuts had to be made there as well, but support must continue to be given to these people.

There is good reason then for the appearance of other means, such as private industry. It sees in this a share of the market. By wanting to restore a system with shorter waiting lists and better care, it is facing off with the governments. Private enterprise is putting enormous pressure on the governments. The governments must really make sure they can maintain all health care services by not losing sight of these five fundamental principles.

We oppose a two tiered system, but the federal government must now do its part to ensure that the provinces can keep and honour these five principles.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support what my colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes said at the start of his speech about the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. I have heard some questionable praise of this government and of this country, which is “the best in the world” and which is totally without scandal or anything else negative.

This is really hiding one's head in the sand like an ostrich. The house is burning down, but “Everything's fine, just great, so worry not”.

I find it almost boring to take part in this debate on the budget, because it ought to pass without any comment. The good news that has been so long awaited has been put off until later. It has been put off until the next time there is an election campaign, this fall; maybe they will make it part of their platform. This is why they have put off the tax cuts until 2001 and 2002. Taxes will be lowered later; we will have to wait. As I have already said, it will likely be announced during the election campaign.

Yet the federal government had a clearly sufficient margin of manoeuvrability by this year to step up its efforts to reduce the tax burden. They are telling the taxpayers to be patient. It will take another few years for individuals, families and businesses to really be able to profit from the tax breaks announced by the Minister of Finance.

As for the indexation of the tax tables, the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for this measure ever since 1993. Since 1994 the Minister of Finance has got $17 billion from the pockets of taxpayers. That is clear: $17 billion.

Why did he not do it earlier? Because it was very lucrative. The federal government did not index the tax tables earlier because this was how it came up with $17 billion.

I would point out to those listening, who are perhaps not familiar with this issue, that indexing the tax tables does not mean that taxes will go down. My colleague explained this earlier. It merely means that next year an individual's taxes will not go up. Indexing the tax tables merely means that people will not pay more.

The big losers in this budget are the provinces. In fact, the Minister of Finance refused to go along with the premiers' urgent demand for a permanent increase in the cash portion of the social transfer intended for health, social assistance and postsecondary education.

The provinces demanded that the Canada social transfer be restored to the 1993-94 level. I was elected in 1993, at which time I was the health critic. Unless I am mistaken, things have been going badly in that sector since the Canada social transfer was slashed and separate payments were combined into one smaller amount, which was handed over to the provinces with the order to find a way to make it cover health, social assistance and postsecondary education. These billions of dollars in cuts left the provinces in a very difficult situation, particularly in the health care sector, where needs are growing.

We often mention that the population is aging, that new technologies are increasingly costly, but the federal government turns a deaf ear and makes cuts to eliminate its deficit, on the backs of the poor and the sick. It passes the bill on to the provinces and then says “The problem is that the provinces do not manage their affairs properly”. But the public is not stupid. It can see that, by squeezing the provinces, this government has forced them to reduce their services.

The Minister of Finance tells us that he did provide an increase. But he did not increase the Canada social transfer. He took $2.5 billion, put it in a trust and told the provinces “You are entitled to a prorated amount, you are entitled to a few million, based on conditions set by me”. This is all because of the social union. We were right when we said that the provinces sold their birthright for a pittance. This is how it happened. The provinces are now forced to beg and to implore the big boss, who has the money, and say “Please give us some money, because we have people who are dying of hunger”. This is the problem.

Instead of fully restoring the Canada social transfer, which is supposed to meet the public's needs, the Minister of Finance preferred to start another legal battle by establishing this independent trust which will have, in my opinion, a totally inadequate budget.

Another problem generated by this budget is that of social housing and infrastructures. In the case of social housing, it is nothing short of outrageous. The government did not even allocate any money, except a few dollars to renovate housing units that are in a state of disrepair. But we are asking for social housing for the poor. We are asking for new units, not just minor renovations.

I heard Liberal Party colleagues boasting about the sums they supposedly invested in social housing. However, if members look at the budget, they will have a hard time finding funds for social housing. It is like looking for a needle in the haystack.

The Bloc Quebecois asked the minister to inject $3 billion into an infrastructure program, including $1.7 billion for social housing. The request had the support of all the community groups, such as FRAPRU in Quebec, which looks after social housing for the most disadvantaged. It supported the proposal, because the need is there and to the extent of at least $1.7 billion. When the government says it looks after the poor in this budget, well, we can forget about that.

Instead, the government announced provision for infrastructures in municipalities and urban and rural communities. In the first year, it will provide $100 million for all the provinces. But, Quebec's share of this will be between $20 and $25 million. Given that five kilometres of road costs about $1 million, does the government think we are going to go far with that?

There is worse to come—the employment insurance plan. This budget provides no improvement to the employment insurance plan. There is simply a reduction in contribution rates of 10 cents a year.

We must not say it too loud, because I do not think the Liberals have emphasized it much. Ten cents a year is so ridiculous. In four years, it will be 40 cents. Applause, applause, employment insurance contributions will go down a whole 40 cents. This is scandalous and unacceptable, because the Minister of Finance is using this fund as if it were his milk cow. He is using the unemployed as if they were his milk cows. The robbery continues.

According to the chief actuary, the accumulated surplus will be up to $31.3 billion by the end of the year 2000. To think that the former Celanese employees who were involved in a massive layoff this last week, and who have paid into the EI fund for 20, 25, 30 or 35 years, will get nothing. They are not even eligible for employment insurance because they got separation pay, and that is considered income for determining eligibility for employment insurance.

The Minister of Finance had, however, given us a hint of a possibility, via the former Minister of Human Resources Development, that he would be putting into place an enhanced POWA-style program to help these former workers with 35 years of service, who have always paid into the EI fund. These workers have no prospects of help, and find themselves in a desperate situation and forced onto welfare. This is a horrible and unacceptable situation.