Christian Simard

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

Yes, there can be advantages. But we need to honestly admit that trans fats must not be replaced with saturated fats, which might not be any better.

In general, it must be admitted that we eat too much fat, whether trans or saturated. I think if we were to eat more of the unsaturated fats—omega 3 or omega 6—our health would really benefit.

We need to ensure that the primary purpose of this is not related to some industry. That is what concerns me about the situation with the Deschambault aluminum smelter and the neighbouring farms. I remember when it was built, and it became necessary to ensure the quality of dairy milk and all products in the food chain. That is important. Some degree of guidance is needed, and the real danger is that, at some point—

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Under certain circumstances there are not always complete studies, for example for GMOs, even about labelling that would allow it. However, I agree completely with the hon. member that the situation is the same when it comes to protecting the environment. Just having a warning about a persistent toxic poison in the environment does not remove the risk of contracting cancer. Just because there is a label does not mean the danger is gone.

Thus, I believe we must go beyond labelling, because on a label there are so many ingredients, instructions and other things that people get confused.

Sometimes, too, we hear, “Everything is bad; everything is dangerous”. After a while, people have heard it so often they no longer listen. Other times we hear that some foods are good and others are not so good. People no longer know whom to trust.

We are entitled to a responsible government. We have not had this opportunity very often, but we have the right to insist that a government be responsible and that it do the right thing when it is clearly needed. I think the studies are sufficiently conclusive in the case of trans fats.

There is a whole generation at risk. I said as a joke that my children call me a big load of trans fats, but I am worried that my children will also turn into big piles of trans fats and live shorter lives. We often say that we judge a society by the way it treats its children, how it feeds them, and how it takes care of them so that they will live long and well, enjoying full and complete lives. We cannot always prevent them from eating chips and candy and things like that. We must ensure—because they cannot always read and understand the labels—that there are no poisons in the foods they eat.

That said, there will always be a great need for education to transmit values, above and beyond the law.

[Supply, November 18th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Laval.

The NDP motion raises an extremely important and interesting issue. Personally, I would have preferred a slightly more limpid motion, not that it contains trans fats, but sometimes things that are well thought out merit being explained clearly. Then the words come easily.

I do not want to criticize to any extent—since we are totally in agreement with the motion—but I must point out that all motions include an educational component. While not wishing to give any lectures on writing or literature, it does seem to me that it might have been written in clearer and simpler terms.

Now, for the substance of the motion, it does raise an essential question about individual responsibility, the state's role in regularizing certain situations, and the right to information about what one eats.

To give my own situation as an example, I was recently surprised to learn at a routine doctor's appointment that I had become what my kids would call a tub of trans fat. I have a very high level of the bad cholesterol. I am not particularly chubby, however—I will let you be the judge of that, Madam Speaker—nor particularly unhealthy. I will soon turn 50, but it was a shock to learn that I will likely have to start taking pills, getting more exercise and eating responsibly.

That said, I do not eat chips or other junk food, as they call it. Like everyone else, I am responsible for what I eat and I do not deny that. Nobody should. But we have faith in the system. We have always had the impression, in the provinces of Canada and in Quebec, that there was a whole bunch of inspectors, specialists and doctors protecting us by carrying out studies before a new food was allowed on the market.

I believe, however, that some complacency has developed in this country as far as this is concerned. We saw that when certain Health Canada employees were not really able to get anywhere when they tried to act as whistleblowers about certain practices, about being pushed by lobbyists to allow certain harmful products and so on.

Is the system working to protect consumers? Consumers are faced with choices. In the case at hand, trans fats are mostly produced by an industrial process, hydrogenation, which turns oils to solids or semi-solids.

Take peanut butter for example. I think it has become a basic food for most students. I have overindulged in it myself, in my youth, but now I have to eat it in secret because my daughter is allergic. We can see that it is less attractive when the oil separates from the peanut solids. We are used to seeing foods that are presented in a more readily saleable version. Marketing has trumped public health and the health of our people, and we have not been informed of these effects.

There were no studies done before these foods were introduced into our diet in massive quantities 50 years ago.

We also realize that, according to the Heart Foundation's studies, our organisms were not designed to digest this kind of trans fats and are not able to eliminate them. There is some confusion in the ratings, depending on the study, but they appear to be more dangerous than saturated fats—which are bad for our health because we use too much of them.

In the case of trans fats, these products were imposed on us. I come from a large family that was not very rich. I remember that we used shortening or margarine instead of butter for our cooking, because they cost less than butter. We did not know we were damaging our health by doing so. We did it blithely, with no one telling us anything and with no safety system to protect us.

Avant-garde countries like Denmark, Sweden and all the Scandinavians have long been concerned with the composition of foods.

In this country, antibiotics are systematically added to finisher feed for pork. Collectively, these antibiotics do us harm when we really do need them to fight infections. The bacteria have grown stronger and, as a result, we are unable to fight off these infections because our base level of antibiotics is too high and our systems have gotten used to the antibiotics. Again, we have a false sense of security.

We have also gotten a false sense of security from the system. For instance, because Canada is a major producer of GMOs, more effort has been put into listening to the industry than into protecting human health, to the point of not being able to read the labels.

As regards trans fats, one has to know that if they are listed at the top, there is more, and one has to really do the math, which is not easy, to figure out how much there is. If one has that kind of time while doing the groceries, one can subtract the saturated fats from the total amount of fats to know how much trans fats a product contains.

The motion the NDP has put forward is an extremely interesting and innovative one. It raises the question of whether we, in Canada and Quebec, can change and start paying closer attention, as some already do. We can no longer afford to assume that food is automatically safe because there are people looking after it, that water is automatically safe because there is lots of it, and that there is no need to protect either food nor water or to ensure they are safe for the public. At the end of the day, we realize that policies are largely determined by industry, and not by concern for public health.

What Denmark and Scandinavia are doing, and a growing number of countries will have to do, is look into applying the precautionary principle and prohibiting processed fats used for reasons of aesthetics, quick processing or preservation, which seems to be to a large extent what trans fats are used for.

There are alternative products. I know that the Leclerc cookie company and other companies have product lines without trans fat, although they are generally a little more expensive. If you do not have a lot of money then you get heart disease. However, if you have a little more money you can afford trans fat free cookies. There is a responsibility in there somewhere. There is certainly a concern about the cost of food, which the Conservative member has raised. We cannot ignore such things. However, the price of junk food is always too high.

Awareness needs to be raised and often good legislation helps to do that.

For example, when there were no laws governing blood alcohol levels, people drove—I did as well sometimes—after having had a little bit to drink. It is odd, but people became good citizens because they had to. If we have a law banning trans fats, which are not produced naturally in food processing, this will send a clear message that they are bad and that we have to change what we eat. This will sound an alarm and work out for the best.

We also have to change our behaviour and make it clear to this government, which is sometimes more sensitive to lobbies than to public health, that the presence of GMOs in products has to be indicated so that people can make informed choices. Nor should bovine hormones be put on the market just because a Canadian industry has developed them. The government needs to develop a sense of responsibility that it is currently lacking. Hopefully, the NDP's call to ban trans fats will be a signal to put public health first and the economy second. Although it is important to have a healthy economy, it should not come at the expense of public health.

[An Act to establish the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in his comments the member read the Canada yearbook of subsidies. His whole argument carries in it its own seed of death. We certainly do not have to thank him for a few crumbs fallen off the table or for the minimum Canada Economic Development does. He said, “Look how fantastic it is; this is why we going to change it”. If it is not broken why fix it?

He reminds me of a farmer telling another one from whom he had borrowed a cauldron, “I will not give you your cauldron back for three reasons: first, I never borrowed it; second, I already gave it back to you; and third, it had a hole and I threw it out”.

We are told things must change. However, Canada Economic Development is investing money—not too much, not always in the right place, not always in the right way—while the leadership for regional development is in Quebec, which has its own system of CLDs. It is not a matter of whether CFDCs are good or bad.

However, when we meet people, we see that reality is not that of the Minister of the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec. When we go in the field, we see the reality in Montreal with the CEDCs, there are agreements with CLDs. In my area, there are agreements with CLDs. What these marvellous federal creatures tell us is that they have no money. Their budget is spread over eight months. There is no increase.

And now the government is going to add a minister and an agency on top of that. Is that really good for Quebeckers or is it only good for the visibility of the federal government that wants to have its say and mess up something Quebec is putting in place with various stockholders? Nobody wants it except maybe a mayor who wants to run in the next election in the Saguenay area.

[Department of Public Safety and emergency Preparedness Act, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, before Oral Questions, I interrupted my speech a bit like one of those western thrillers, with a reference to the government being like an onrushing train. Then we had to stop. I was saying that if this government maintains its lack of respect for democracy and for the work done in committee, it is headed straight ahead, yes, as it said during the campaign, but straight ahead into a brick wall. That is what is going to happen if there is not more respect shown for its colleagues in committee and its minority status as a government.

Now, on another note, I will address some other aspects. When a bill is introduced, the public wonders what changes it will make in their lives, how it will improve their lives, and how it will improve society, make this a better place to live, a safer place where rights and freedoms are respected, a more just society. We must always keep that in mind when bills come before us.

I have spoken of democracy. The way this bill was presented was perhaps not the right way. They are trying to backtrack and to deviate from the committee consensus, to return to their desire to encroach on others' jurisdictions. There is a desire to be intrusive. There is no respect for the underlying democratic principle or for the division of power. Once again, Canadian federalism is being sidetracked. This makes those of us on this side of the House anxious to get out of federalism, and the sooner the better.

Since this is not the time, and since we have a job to do here, to preserve provincial jurisdiction, we will of course be against this amendment which would withdraw the one passed in committee with the intent of ensuring provincial jurisdictions were respected. We are not just speaking for the joy of hearing our own voices. The people watching at home need to know this is not just a squabble about paperwork, about amendments or amendments to amendments. It has a real impact.

I was an advisor to the Minister of Environment in the Quebec government during the flooding in the Saguenay in 1996. During these disasters, it was important and essential to have some kind of command unit and ministerial coordination. It was the same in the case of the ice storm. Quebeckers overcame this crisis with dignity and efficiency, thanks to the dialogue between the population, Premier Lucien Bouchard and the Hydro-Québec president. A whole population acted in harmony and with integrity. Emergency issues were dealt with in a civilized and harmonious way.

When we have two leaders or two ministers responsible for Public Safety, they can encroach on each other and it seems like, finally, no one is in charge. In that case, the population is left to fend for itself. That is a real danger, and this is why my learned colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin had this idea. This was the thrust of his proposal, that is that we would have due regard for the jurisdictions of each level of government and we would ensure that, when necessary, when public safety and protection are threatened, we do not have to wonder who is responsible: Ottawa, Quebec or both. In such a situation, someone tries to play politics.

Thus, we need to know which way to turn. I admit I would rather turn to Quebec than to Ottawa. In this sense, it is a fundamental amendment that was introduced in committee, and it is a vexatious, useless and undemocratic amendment that was introduced in the House to cancel this work approved by the majority in committee.

Of course, we will fight against this amendment. We hope that this will serve as a lesson once again to this government. It seems to need several lessons to acknowledge its status of a minority government and finally develop legislation that respects the citizens, the provinces and Quebec.

[Housing, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, everyone knows it: the federal government is rolling in surpluses. Now it tells us that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has recently produced a surplus of $2.5 billion. By 2008, this surplus could even reach $6 billion.

Is the Minister of Labour and Housing prepared to commit right now to investing this surplus in building or renovating affordable social housing?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 16th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important piece of legislation, Bill C-6 on the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness.

Underlying the debate on this bill are issues of democracy, respect for jurisdictions and government effectiveness.

Democracy is an important element, but unfortunately this minority government has not quite realized it. This is a minority government that did not get 64% of the vote, since it went to electing 54 Bloc Québécois members.

The message from voters to this government then is to respect the opposition parties, the diversity of opinion and provincial jurisdictions. They do not want an imperialist, centralist, ineffective, heavy-spending government. They want a responsible government that knows how to be humble, modest and capable and to do its homework. Unfortunately, the message has not gotten through and this is not the case.

There is no respect for fundamental democracy. I even find this government—in addition to all the nice adjectives I use to describe it, such as imperialist, controlling and arrogant—to be a bit foolish. It is foolish in how it keeps coming back this assembly, the House of Commons.

I agree with my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles—who respects the other hon. members when they are speaking, unlike some people in this House—when he says that when a committee addresses an issue, there has to be very good reasons to change its direction. In a way, the committee represents this House on a small scale. It is where bills are thoroughly considered. It is where, with help from witnesses, we think hard, often clause by clause, about the bill.

It takes a certain arrogance to go back on consensus or committee reports on such fundamental issues as respecting jurisdictions. This should go without saying.

Unfortunately, in its generalized intrusive practices, this government finds a way of being bad in its jurisdictions and being very bad when it comes to overlapping. It specializes in mediocrity.

Of course, this is done at the expense of the taxpayers, of the citizens who, beyond Bill C-6, beyond the amendments being counter-amended by this very strange minority government, which is too big for its britches, only want greater safety, better environmental protection and more respect for public funds.

In the rather artificial environment of Parliament Hill, people tend to forget about these things. As a new member, I can tell the House that a person can easily forget where he comes from. I think many government members have forgotten where they come from and who has sent them here.

We came up with a very simple amendment. We support the bill in principle, although we now realize that it can lead to abuses of power by the minister concerned. We are worried about that, but we hope that it will not happen. We hope that the bill will be passed with the amendment agreed upon in committee, and without today's amendment to counter the amendment, which is despicable. We hope that the bill will be passed in a spirit of cooperation and respect for provincial jurisdictions.

Last summer, the government was bragging about practising asymmetrical federalism, but now it has gone back to its hypocritical behaviour, as evidenced by the way it deals with all the legislation and the various measures. Its hypocrisy is reflected in this about face. I think the government will soon hit a wall. It will even--

[Housing Cooperatives, November 3rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, a housing cooperative in the Limoilou sector of Quebec City is about to celebrate its 20th birthday. The Coopérative d'habitation À l'étage has buildings on 9th and 10th streets. My family and I once lived in one of them, so the co-op holds a special place in my heart. It is one of the 175 housing cooperatives in the Fédération des coopératives d'habitation de Québec-Chaudières-Appalaches, which provides 4,000 housing units in all.

This cooperative is fortunate to be in good health to celebrate this 20-year milestone. Many others have felt the effects of the cuts imposed by the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Finance.

Negotiations are underway at this time between federal and Quebec government representatives to obtain the transfer of federal funds for social housing. Quebec must obtain its fair share if it is to properly support housing cooperatives.

I wish the Coopérative d'habitation À l'étage a happy 20th birthday on November 6. May it celebrate many more and continue to be a shining example of cooperative housing.

[Assistance to Hepatitis C Victims, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Chair, I would like to make several comments and ask a question of my conservative colleague. I have here a memo from the hon. member for Hochelaga. As early as 1999 he asked the federal government to grant financial compensation to the victims. At the time, he based his argument on five points and when he talked about the victims, he meant all the victims.

His arguments were that Ottawa is constitutionally responsible for the blood supply in Canada; the federal government has the financial means to provide this assistance; at the time, two provinces voluntarily compensated victims; the first recommendation of the Krever commission was a proposal to establish a no-fault compensation system. As well, the citizens of Quebec and of Canada expect the federal government to help the people with overwhelming health needs whose illness is no fault of their own.

Today, in 2004, five years later, I believe this position in principle has not changed one iota. I know that time is an extremely important issue in these considerations because the quality of life of the victims of hepatitis C, or the families of the victims, is affected further when they do not receive this compensation. They have difficulties making ends meet. They have difficulties living with the illness or with those suffering from the illness.

Nonetheless, I have noticed that the current Minister of Health is open to resolving the matter. In cases like this, we can be extremely firm when we have to be with this government. Unfortunately, we have to be quite often. However, in a case like this one, we commend the minister's openness.

We would like the representative of the Conservative Party of Canada who just spoke, to tell us whether it would not be better to work together with the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party of Canada and the minister by supporting the minister's efforts to decrease the excessive delays, and use this political openness, this economic openness due to the unexpected surpluses, as quickly as possible, without engaging in petty politics at the victims' expense or arguing about who is right in this situation.

Is the Conservative Party of Canada prepared to embark upon this constructive dynamic, without forgetting the past, since we could never forget the past the victims have experienced? Are the Conservatives prepared to work toward correcting the situation as quickly as possible without arguing about who was right and without engaging in petty politics at the victims' expense?

I invite my colleague to join this cooperative effort and to comment on it.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, November 2nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the Bloc Québécois, we support the principle of this bill, which comes late.

Once again, Canada did not have a good environmental record. As absurd as it may appear, until today, and this is still the case, surveillance of ships was done only within 12 miles of Canadian coasts. Anything could happen within the 200 mile economic zone. A ship only had to move slightly to do literally what it wanted, without any possibility of prosecution.

Thus, this is a correction to a situation that was absurd. We appreciate this correction, although it comes late.

Of course, we will have interventions to make in committee to improve the bill, to see that there are no loopholes and that it really applies, that is, that it actually prevents spills at sea. Where a bill is limited is when we do not have the means to implement it. We will also ensure that we have the means to enforce it.

I would like to review with you the very recent report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which came out last week. This report follows up on an international agreement that is directly relevant to the subject that we are dealing with today. It is the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the MARPOL convention, which is aimed at eliminating deliberate pollution of marine environment by ships, as well as reducing to a minimum accidental spills of pollutants. This convention has appendices and other documents. The commissioner did an audit. The least we can say is that she criticizes this government, which did not do its work, and has even reduced its inspections over the years.

One important thing to know is that, and I quote from the commissioner's report, “Normal ship operations generate different types of operational waste, including garbage, sewage, machinery run-offs, engine room bilges, and oily wastes”. We also need to know that this oil pollution kills about 300,000 seabirds each year off the coast of Atlantic Canada. The scope of the commissioner's audit was limited to the Atlantic coast. As we know, this country borders three oceans. I should point out, for the benefit of those listening, that these three oceans generate over $20 billion in annual economic activity, and that over $85 billion in trade passes through them every year. We are talking about a mass of activities, huge traffic and equally huge environmental impacts.

The report says, “oil pollution along the coast of southeastern Newfoundland is among the highest in the world, and the problem has persisted from 1984 to 1999 (based on the latest available information)”. The pollution is said to be among the highest in the world, with a legislative instrument that was totally inappropriate until now and that did not even comply with the conventions signed by Canada. This is really similar to the situation with Kyoto. The government can sign a convention, show goodwill and look good on the international scene, but when it comes to implementing, monitoring and following up on legislation, it is a different story. Canada looks as bad as the oiled birds.

Some countries have better environmental laws than we do, but these are kept secret. In some countries, environmental laws are not published. Their enforcement is left totally to the discretion of a regional governor, so they are not enforced. We must not have a caricature of legislation, but laws that truly have an effect in the field or, in this case, the marine environment.

The commissioner's report discusses oiled bird surveys:

Oil on the sea surface can kill any seabird that it touches and can significantly affect bird populations. This is of particular concern in Atlantic Canada, where ship traffic passes through areas that provide suitable habitat for tens of millions of seabirds... Many dead seabirds wash ashore in southeastern Newfoundland, and Environment Canada has overseen regular beached bird surveys there since 1984.

Beached bird surveys also lack the frequency and geographical coverage required to provide a reasonable picture of the overall oil pollution problem.

Very little is known about what is going on.

When we look at the surveys that are done, we might think the situation is improving, but it is not. These surveys suggest that the Canadian ocean areas are immense and contain many maritime shipping routes. In Atlantic Canada, the National Aerial Surveillance Program performed 644 hours of surveillance flights in 2002–03 and overflew 1,782 vessels.

According to Transport Canada, this represents only about one percent of the known vessel traffic in Atlantic waters within Canadian jurisdiction. The rate of surveillance has even decreased and the use of aerial surveillance has its limitations. Aerial surveillance cannot really be performed at night when a great deal of polluting may be occurring.

We support the bill. We will make sure there are no loopholes. The system is more restrictive, but according to our analyses, it is still possible for ship captains or owners to say they unintentionally discharged oil and then quickly tried to recover it. Maybe that is when they got caught.

Therefore, we need to prevent circumvention. We have to ensure that the purpose of this bill is not solely to reassure Quebeckers and Canadians about what the federal government is doing but to make it clear that polluting the inland waters of Canada within the 200-mile limit is wrong and can cost a lot. This is what the bill is all about. It even provides prison terms for those who deliberately discharge oil at sea—employees, captains and shipowners alike.

There has been much talk about oil-soaked birds. Although less documented, the effect of pollution on other marine organisms such as phytoplankton or zooplankton that live near the surface of the water is widely known. For instance, at the larval stage, cod looks like plankton floating on top of the water. A large oil spill where cod reproduces might destroy tons of larva of cod or other fish or species in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

This is not be as well documented or as visible, unfortunately, but it can be much more damaging in the long term than the harm done to seabirds. Of course, I do not mean to minimize the effect on seabirds, since the pictures of them have a considerable impact and, as we know, 300,000 birds die in Atlantic Canada alone.

Unfortunately, the federal government is considered as a dunce in environment, and the report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development proves it. François Cardinal, not I, said so in La Presse today, and I quote:

With such a disappointing environmental record, Canada does not only deserve the dunce cap, it should be expelled from school.

Of course we acknowledge these belated efforts to find solutions to longstanding problems that even go against conventions already signed by Canada. We acknowledge the desire to correct the situation. However, there is a concern that there could not be enough money to follow up on it.

In reality, we notice that unfortunately, the government is more interested in talking about daycare or about communities and municipalities when these issues are not under its jurisdiction, in interfering in areas of jurisdiction where it does not belong and in managing billion dollars surpluses without public debate on the way this money is used. The government is much more interested in talking about all this than in doing something about its primary responsibilities to protect the oceans and the Gulf of St. Lawrence to make sure there are no more environmental disasters.

This government is just like a spoiled kid who wants his brother's or friend's toys but refuses to clean up his room or make his bed. Unfortunately, this is what Canada is doing with regard to environment and we deeply regret it.