Odina Desrochers

[Agriculture, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec farmers are impatiently waiting for an agreement to be reached between the federal government and the Government of Quebec on the agriculture policy framework. What the Union des producteurs agricoles and Quebec are both asking for is some flexibility from Ottawa.

Will the Minister of Agriculture finally agree to allow the financial part of the aid designated for farmers in Quebec to be administered by the Financière agricole du Québec, yes or no?

[Egg Marketing, November 27th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today, I want to highlight the 30th anniversary of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency. The agency, which was the first one to look after the interests of Quebec and Canadian producers, created a supply management system that is now used by other agricultural agencies, namely the turkey, chicken, hatching egg and milk agencies.

The Fédération des producteurs d'oeufs du Québec and its then president, Ovila Lebel, were among the pioneers who quickly realized the importance of the collective management of production and marketing operations.

They were convinced that supply management is the best way for farmers to make a good living with their production, while promoting the development of human size farms.

Let us also not forget that supply management ensures constant and quality supply for consumers, without direct government subsidies.

The achievements of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency benefit Quebec society and all those who make a living in this sector. Supply management must be protected by the government. It must not be watered down. Quebec producers are expecting stronger measures on the part of this government, which must now put its money where its mouth is.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to take part in today's debate. While this is not an urgent matter, this debate must take place so that we may take the necessary action to restore democracy in this Parliament, on both sides.

I remember when the former Auditor General, Denis Desautels, did a post mortem of the ten years during which he held his position. He clearly said that the powers in the hands of parliamentarians, of members of this House, are being increasingly reduced.

The way the Liberals are behaving, often by making what I would call inflammatory statements outside the House, shows that they are gradually creating a Parliament that does not care about democracy.

For example, the House was asked to vote on a motion seeking to make some changes to the operations of the committees. This was a motion that simply asked that the election of committee chairs be conducted by secret ballot. The hon. member for Hull—Aylmer said on CBC radio that he would never have supported such a motion, because it came from the opposition.

This shows how little these people care about democracy. They forget that, before these members became the opposition, they campaigned and won the support of a percentage of voters. In the case of the Bloc Quebecois, its members were elected with very strong majorities, ranging from 45% to 60%.

Despite this, these people say that anything that comes from the opposition is worthless. So, this issue must be examined. Since the Liberals do not seem to be at all receptive, we must look at how the Canadian Parliament works and try to restore democracy in this place. I would like to take a closer look at how committees operate.

It is in committee that I was able to see—and several of my colleagues share this view—that democracy really does not exist anymore, that the discussions that take place in committees are ignored.

I want to point out that the work done in committee accounts for 50% of the duties of parliamentarians. The first part of this work consists in paying attention to everything that goes on here, so as to be able to make comments, suggestions and a contribution to the proceedings of the House of Commons.

The second part consists in attending question period. Again, question period was borrowed from the British parliamentary system. The opposition normally represents the people, who want to know more about policies, decisions and all that is going on on the government's side. Question period no longer meets that need, because what we have opposite is actors who come before us with their texts in hand, and their canned answers.

These people do not respect or defend the interests of Parliament, but they are increasingly defending the interests of their party. With the infighting going on across the way, some are defending the interests of the Prime Minister while others are defending those of the member for LaSalle—Émard. All this to say that not much is happening in this Parliament anymore. When we look at the questions put to the minister, we can see that there are no answers.

It so happens that the people sent us here, to this place, to ask questions and get information. Often, acting this way undermines the credibility of parliamentarians.

Let us come back to committees. MPs work in collaboration with researchers, their staff and their colleagues. They put forward motions and try to improve the bills or the positions taken by the various committees. Often, depending on the time, we see an employee from the government whip's office come in bringing notes. The next to arrive are members, who do not even know why they are there but were directed by the Prime Minister's Office to attend, with the sole objective of undoing all the work of members who have dedicated hours and even weeks to improving bills.

I know that a vote is an important thing. Every parliamentarian is entitled to one, but in light of the context we find ourselves in more and more often in the House of Commons—incidentally, I have launched the battle at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts—thought should be given to correcting the situation. Perhaps we need a mechanism whereby only the members who participated in two thirds or three quarters of the committee proceedings would be allowed to vote. This would at least have the advantage of forcing the Liberals who come and defeat our motions to take part in our proceedings.

Second, in some committees, the non-partisan aspect needs to be emphasized. Right now, we are again seeing that the Liberals are demonstrating no openness, they always take the party line.

Currently, people who follow the proceedings of the House of Commons are asking serious questions about the work we do as parliamentarians. They can sense the attitude of the members opposite. It is having a negative impact on the work of the opposition and parliamentarians. The discontent from members opposite is palpable. Even the government backbenchers are frustrated that they no longer have any leeway. As my colleague said before, voter turnout is dropping with every election because the actions of Liberal members opposite are undermining the credibility of parliamentarians. So, regardless of what happens, we have to deal with perceptions. The perception of people who read the papers, who watch television and who listen to the radio is that nothing happens anymore in Parliament.

I remember how fed up I was when I saw members voting against people who were sick. I am referring to the vote against people with hepatitis C, when the Prime Minister imposed the party line. When it has come to people acting in this way, how can we expect the public to continue to believe in the institution of Parliament? It needs to be changed and improved immediately.

Take voting for example. We could have an electronic vote. Often, we have a series of votes on motions which are put forward by the members opposite, and which mean absolutely nothing. So, we could have an electronic vote.

I can see that my time is running out, and I have so many things I would like to say. For all those listening today, and in light of the comments made by my colleague, who gave an interesting speech, I hope that today represents a new beginning for democracy and that we will give serious consideration to the work of parliamentarians and to the business of the House, and that we can all work together to restore some credibility to parliamentarians in this House.

[Rendez-vous national des régions, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the rendez-vous national des régions was a great success, with all of the participants from Quebec's regions giving Quebec Premier Bernard Landry a spontaneous standing ovation.

The meeting provided an opportunity for a productive exchange between the Government of Quebec and Quebec's regions. Even Jean Charest and Mario Dumont, who had been critical of the meeting, agreed with the consensus that was struck.

Real commitments, such as reducing the cost of air travel to and from outlying regions, and even more importantly, creating a standing parliamentary committee on the future of the regions will have a real impact on the development of rural areas.

Hats off to the regional leaders. And congratulations to Premier Bernard Landry. Now let us hope that the federal government will do its share.

[Wind Energy, November 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one of the forms of energy with the most promise as far as lowering greenhouse gas emissions is concerned is wind energy. The current federal government program to encourage wind energy production has an envelope of $260 million over 15 years, which represents a mere $17.33 million a year.

Given the obligations Canada intends to commit to by ratifying Kyoto, does the government intend to substantially beef up the funding envelope for wind energy?

[Small Communities, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion by my colleague from Nova Scotia. This motion reads as follows:

--the recent census taken in 2001 confirms the significant momentum of population towards cities in Canada and given the negative impact this trend will have on smaller and rural communities...

It is not the first time I speak about this in the House. In my remarks, I would like to focus on the solutions advocated by my colleague. However, I might have some problems in fully endorsing his proposals.

First, let us talk about rural policy or the regional and rural policy of the federal government. First of all, what policy? This is what I have been wondering about, since the funds invested in this policy absolutely do not meet the expectations of rural Canada.

In Quebec, we already have a rural policy. It is a first step. We are now working toward strengthening regions. Through various organizations, the government is trying to provide the necessary tools and means to enable regions to regain some strength.

What is happening in the maritime provinces? As my colleague was saying, that region is also greatly affected by this exodus of people. It is often young people who leave rural regions. We see this throughout Quebec; the population is getting older and there is no new blood.

My colleague talks about changing the immigration legislation in the country. We know that the Quebec government has been working for a long time to reach a consensus and to make gains to ensure that immigration policies are shared responsibilities. We finally reached an agreement whereby some responsibilities are now under Quebec jurisdiction, while others are under federal jurisdiction.

If the government wants to change immigration legislation in the country, it should make these changes in cooperation with the provinces and, in particular, with Quebec.

A partnership has been established on immigration. A proposal to rectify a situation should not create another injustice. If the government introduces a national, coast to coast policy, and this national policy does not respect the policies that are already in force in the provinces, once again, we will have to deal with some difficult situations.

I say to my colleague that I agree with changes to immigration, but in cooperation with the provinces. If ever these changes are made, I really hope that the federal government will make them in cooperation with the Quebec government.

I would now like to talk about one of the causes of this exodus. The exodus of people from rural regions to cities, particularly young people, is a growing problem. The federal government is largely responsible for this exodus by refusing to loosen employment insurance rules.

In the Maritimes, as in Quebec, Ontario and western Canada, everyone is suffering as a result of the employment insurance legislation. The legislation is very strict, it has no flexibility and it pays no regard to seasonal workers. It does not meet the needs of rural regions. What we do know is that it prevents people from settling in regions or rural areas. Here is an example.

A young person moves to a region and gets a seasonal job. He gets a job in a unionized plant where there are seniority lists. Before being eligible for EI benefits, he must work 910 hours. Think about it, 910 hours.

If there is an economic downturn, or a period where the seasonal work ends, this young person is unable to qualify for EI benefits. What does he do? He turns around and looks for a job, and ends up moving to an urban centre where he will be able to find more permanent employment that allows him to get his 910 hours.

We all know that when a person leaves a region and begins to feel at ease in a large city, that person does not go back to his region. This happens all the time.

In my riding, I often see young people who are attending CEGEP or university, and they do not necessarily come back to the riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable. This situation may also explain why, when a young person leaves his or her region, that person does not necessarily come back to work there. This is truly an unfair situation, a glaring injustice to the new generation.

If we want to revitalize regions and rural communities, it is essential that young people remain there. Then, once we have managed to keep our young people in our ridings, we can go ahead with the proposal put forward by the hon. member from the Maritimes and change immigration laws in our country to repopulate these regions, but always with the agreement of the provinces. This is done in Quebec, with the provincial government.

Personally, I think that, in the immigration sector, we have established a kind of partnership between the provincial and federal governments and we must continue in the same direction, so that the gains made by the Quebec government can be maintained, regardless of the changes made to the Immigration Act.

When we talk about economic development, again it is a rather broad notion. Everybody is involved with economic development, but there does not seen to be a common ground between the provinces and the federal government where they talk to one another and create a true economic program aimed at the regions and rural areas.

When I see the way the federal government believes in the regions and rural areas, and the crumbs it is giving the Secretary of State for Rural Development, I understand why people in the regions are starting to wonder. They are starting to really question how serious the government is with regard to the regions and rural areas.

If the federal government wants to send the clear message that it is ready to support the regions and rural areas, it is all fine and good to philosophize, make fine speeches and have lofty principles, but there has to be a commitment to real action. This means that the Throne from the Speech must contain concrete measures for the regions and rural areas.

When the Minister of Finance makes a budget statement, as he did in Halifax, he must signal that his government believes in the regions and rural areas. But through the years--I have been here since 1997--I have seen no real intent on the part of the current government to send a real message that it will help the regions and rural areas and support the efforts by communities to see to their own needs. Communities were so hard hit by cuts in government programs that they need support and encouragement.

I believe the federal government should take this issue seriously and send a clear message, namely that the minister of Finance or the Prime Minister will commit money and resources to encourage people. This, way people will be able to say that the federal government is doing its job.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of the great importance of immigration and the fact there have been a number of attempts in recent years to change the current act, which dates back to 1977.

We have seen three ministers of immigration come and go. We have heard two throne speeches since we were re-elected in the fall of 2000. It would appear that today we are being presented with a bill that does not meet the public's expectations.

I would also like to find out from my colleague whether she does not feel that the government's approach to a policy as important as immigration is not somewhat irresponsible? What, in her opinion, are the main improvements that should be made to the bill we are debating in the House at this time?

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am not at all surprised to hear the comments of the hon. member opposite. I do not know if it is a privilege to have had him as Chair but, on numerous occasions, he made heavy handed and rigid decisions. We could really see that this Chair was following orders coming directly from the Prime Minister's Office.

Today, his behaviour shows that he has once again been sent by the PMO to try to salvage what I now call the “downfall of the dictator” who has been in office since his re-election, in 2000.

The hon. member himself may be negotiating some chairmanship by continuing to follow the orders of the Prime Minister's Office to sabotage the committee's proceedings.

Is this what the hon. member calls democracy, is this is what he calls freedom of expression, and is this what he calls being a true parliamentarian in the House of Commons?

[The Media, October 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the very objective journalist from the National Post, Jonathan Kay, just found another reason to explain why the Montreal Expos are leaving: separatism.

The headline today in this Canadian newspaper read “Separatism killed the Expos”.

In hockey, was it separatism in Manitoba that caused the Winnipeg Jets to relocate to Phoenix?

In basketball, was it separatism in British Columbia that caused the Vancouver Grizzlys to relocate to Memphis?

I have an idea as a career move for Jonathan Kay; he should team up, as a sportscaster, with Don Cherry, another good friend of Quebeckers. The CBC could then boast about paying two great sports experts on national television with Quebec taxpayers' money.

[Social Insurance Cards, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has pointed out that despite the fact that the federal government decided last year on an action plan to solve the problem of social insurance cards, nothing has happened except that the situation gets worse by the day.

This is the great government that claims to protect Canadians from terrorists by passing bills on security in Parliament to collect information and data. Meanwhile, just managing social insurance numbers seems to be a major challenge.

How is it possible that it could be so incompetent as to have five million too many cards in circulation, or to have sent 225 cards to the same address? In terms of incompetence, this takes the cake.

Those who still believe that Ottawa knows best will have to rethink their position. The management of social insurance cards demonstrates yet again how incompetent this government really is.