Odina Desrochers

[Employment Insurance Act, February 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is easy to answer that question. There are almost no changes. Therefore, the list would be very short; I would have no problem at all with that list being presented to my constituents in Lotbinière—L'Érable.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my constituents have been the victims of a partisan misinformation campaign.

On television, during the campaign, they accused the Bloc Quebecois of not fighting for the interests of Quebecers. In spite of that misinformation, 40% of Quebecers put their trust in us. They knew that if they sent 38 members to the House of Commons, these members would continue to fight for their interests.

I have found a new word to describe what is happening on that side. We hear about autocracy and democracy. I would call whatever happened in the House of Commons during the last session and during the last campaign and whatever is going on right now “chrétinocracy”.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first, as it is the first time I have had the floor during this 37th parliament, I am very happy to begin by thanking my constituents of the great riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable, who have returned me as their representative in the House of Commons. This victory by the Bloc was reflected in all of the 50 municipalities of my great riding and this victory is due to the 500 volunteers who worked hard to keep the riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable with the Bloc.

Speaking of the campaign, I would like to remind the House of certain things that were said at the time, specifically on employment insurance. Before going deeper into this bill, I am going to bring forward some facts that marked the last election campaign. During the next minutes, I am going to show, once again, that the Liberals have not been true to their word, to their promises.

We all remember the interview on an English language network where the Prime Minister apologized and was very remorseful for the devastating effects of the EI system reform.

That week, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport adopted a similar tone when he said that, when the Liberals returned to power, it would be time to propose major changes in order to meet the expectations of the unemployed.

I also remember that one week before the election, when the Prime Minister was in New Brunswick and spoke so eloquently about his election commitments, he forgot to mention that he would look after the unemployed. One of his advisers immediately reminded him that he should talk about the issue.

All this confirms that once again we have been the victims of a real misinformation campaign. The unemployment issue has indeed created confusion in parliament. No one has a clue. Everybody is looking for the facts. We are trying to find out what the government intends to do, but to no avail.

Let me reflect on the highlights of the reform, on certain recommendations that the Bloc Quebecois intends to make. I will also deal with the report tabled last week by the auditor general.

For a few years now the Bloc Quebecois has been openly critical of the surplus in the employment insurance fund. Only last week, the auditor general said:

In his 2000 report, the Chief Actuary of Human Resources Development Canada has estimated that a reserve of $10 billion to $15 billion should be sufficient to guarantee the stability of EI premium rates over a business cycle.

In the meantime, the Employment Insurance Account's accumulated surplus has grown to $28.2 billion, almost twice the maximum amount considered sufficient by the Chief Actuary.

We wondered. What did the Government of Canada, what did the Liberals do with the surplus? The auditor general told us in a rather direct manner:

The Account's operating surplus, in effect, provides a source of revenue and cash flow for the government and helps reduce its net debt.

This means that the government has taken money from the unemployed, it has taken EI contributions to pay off the debt and particularly to set up programs that often infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions.

What is going on in this parliament is totally unacceptable. A few moments ago, the government House leader announced a first time allocation motion, a first gag order.

What should we make of this whole issue? During the election campaign, the big names in the Liberal Party of Canada said that parliament would take its time to discuss the employment insurance issue. Now that we are back here in the House we find that the House leader is again playing the same game that he started during the last session by moving gag orders to prevent democratically elected representatives from saying what they have to say about the Employment Insurance Act.

The Bloc Quebecois is strongly opposed to Bill C-2, a pure and simple imitation of Bill C-44. However, it would be interesting if the current government divided Bill C-2 in two, to ensure it would respond more realistically to the expectations of unemployed people.

We have a series of recommendations to make. I would like to say that, already in the last parliament, the Bloc Quebecois had been very forward looking, since it had introduced six bills to improve the operation of employment insurance, to try to find better solutions to respond to the needs of unemployed people.

The Bloc's requests are very clear. We ask for the elimination of the intensity rule. This bill talks about this. We also ask that the maximum insurable earnings be increased from 55% to 60%, which would be much more realistic. We also ask for the elimination of the discriminatory clause towards new entrants to the labour force. We know this applies to young people and women. We also ask for the elimination of the qualifying period.

In Bill C-2 it is announced that the premium rate is to be reduced to $2.25, but the auditor general's report has much more precise calculations. This government is already late when it says it wants to reduce premiums to $2.25. The chief actuary, an employee of the Department of Human Resources Development, believes that employees' premium rates should be between $1.70 and $2.20, which would cover the long term costs of the employment insurance program.

In its planning documents, the Department of Human Resources Development predicts that the accumulated surplus will reach $34.6 billion by March 31, 2001. On August 31, 2000, the unaudited balance of the fund's accumulated surplus was $32.4 billion. These figures disgust the public. These surpluses are upsetting, they make no sense.

We understand that the Liberal government is trying with Bill C-2 to hide the truth. It is trying to legalize what has always been called the hold-up of the unemployed and the small and medium businesses. If Bill C-2 ever passes, no one, including the auditor general, will be able to intervene to bring this government back to order.

Of late we have witnessed all sorts of operations making this government, this parliament, increasing antidemocratic. In the riding I represent and in all ridings in Quebec, there are seasonal workers, men and women who return to the labour market, young people who come onto the labour market. These people, because of measures that are very difficult to understand, cannot draw employment insurance.

Just imagine that a young person has to work 910 hours before being entitled to draw benefits. A worker paying benefits—depending on the region—must accumulate between 420 and 700 hours to be entitled to employment insurance benefits.

The current act, which will not be amended by Bill C-2, discriminates seriously against young people and women, who are affected by this rule, that is, they must work 910 hours if they return to the labour market.

If I look at Bill C-2, especially if I refer to the many promises not kept by the federal Liberals in the latest election, it is very thin in content. It offers no hope to the unemployed waiting for major changes, which could have met their needs and corrected the injustices committed against them by the Prime Minister and his government in the last session.

When I think about what happened during the election campaign and when I hear all the balderdash on employment insurance coming from the other side, I wonder who knows the truth. Fortunately, the Auditor General of Canada brought back some kind of order last week. He gave some indications to try and clear things up.

This bill is an insult to the unemployed. There is nothing in it for them. It only mentions the abolition of the intensity rule and some minor changes when everyone in Quebec and in Canada was expecting so much.

The Liberals are laughing at the unemployed. They did it throughout the election campaign and continue to do so here, in the House of Commons.

The members of the Bloc Quebecois will continue to fight for improvements for the unemployed. Fortunately, we have in the House of Commons 38 men and women to protect the interests of Quebecers. Even with the government trying to muzzle us and take away our freedom of speech, I hope that, in the little time we have, we can prove that Bill C-2 is an empty shell, that it brings almost no changes to the system and is an insult to the unemployed in Quebec.

[Auditor General, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, by making appointments on the basis of political allegiance instead of competency, is the Prime Minister not demonstrating that, for his government, it is more important to ensure that it has influence over the crown corporations by appointing Liberals, than that they be properly administered by appointing competent people?

[Auditor General, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, according to the auditor general's report, 25% of the boards of crown corporations are totally out of their depth, because the government appoints members according to political criteria rather than competency.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he justify the fact that, for his government, political allegiance holds more weight than professional competency, when the time comes to select people who will be administering billions of dollars through crown corporations?

[Auditor General Of Canada, February 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada, will be tabling his last report in the House of Commons.

This report will summarize the ten years of Mr. Desautels' mandate. Indeed, Mr. Desautels spent ten years pointing out serious problems in all important areas, including the programs run by Human Resources Development Canada.

He spent ten years conducting fully independent audits and reviews and communicating his findings to parliament in an informative and objective fashion.

He spent ten years trying to improve parliamentary control over public moneys and promoting the use of effective management methods in the public administration.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois wishes to stress here the exceptional work done by Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada. Once again, thank you for having helped improve the well-being of all Quebecers and Canadians.

[Farming Family Of The Year, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, during a recent ceremony in Lévis, the Fondation de la famille terrienne selected the family of Lucille and Hector Lebel, who live in Saint-Épiphane de Rivière-du-Loup, as Quebec's farming family of the year.

This prestigious award is given in recognition of strong personal and work ethics and will be presented to the family at a solemn mass at the parish church of Saint-Épiphane, on October 28.

This fine family from our riding stands out for its commitment to excellence, its farming expertise and its unstinting involvement in our community life.

The Bloc Quebecois members are proud to congratulate the family of Lucille and Hector Lebel on receiving this much-deserved award for the year 2000.

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. As members know, the Bloc Quebecois is calling for more substantial changes in the bill introduced by the Liberals.

We all know that this whole issue concerns seasonal workers. I am a little bit surprised to see that my colleague from the Canadian Alliance is not aware of the problems that all the seasonal workers from western Canada face.

Why should we penalize the seasonal workers from eastern and western parts of Canada by adopting a policy that does not seem to meet their needs, wherever they are in Canada? I would like some explanations on this.

[Natural Gas, June 14th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of my party, I take this opportunity to ask a question concerning transfer payments.

The Minister of Finance has been questioned on this on numerous occasions in this House. He has always come out with a series of figures that are totally unsatisfactory to my party and to the Government of Quebec, and in particular to Pauline Marois, the Minister of Health.

When I asked my question of the Minister of Finance, I quoted an expert who had worked along with Lester B. Pearson in his day. According to this expert, the federal government's behaviour, and that of the Minister of Finance in particular, made it extremely difficult to understand the logic used in determining transfer payments.

Again today, I was amazed to hear the Minister of Health's announcement, made in Ontario with great fanfare, of initiatives aimed at rural Canadians. That means another $80 million that will be taken away, over the heads of existing structures, such as the Government of Quebec, its department of health, and all the health infrastructure in place in Quebec.

It would be much more simple to have the Minister of Finance tell us why he is refusing to reinstate the transfer payments at 1994 levels. This situation is causing major headaches to provincial health ministers. For example, in the case of Quebec, it involves a shortfall of $1.5 billion.

If this government really wants to show it still has a social conscience and is concerned about health care, it will release the funds needed to reinstate the transfer payments.

Once again, I insist. Perhaps with all the rumours going around at the moment, with the health summit approaching in September, we can expect the government to be more open.

If, however, we go with the current reaction of the Prime Minister on parental leave, I have my doubts about the Minister of Finance's willingness to reinstate transfer payments.

Will transfer payments be reinstated soon? There is an urgent need for them everywhere, especially in Quebec. This money does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to taxpayers who paid it. Taxes are higher than usual. The middle class is hit hard.

Why is the government refusing to reinstate transfer payments at their 1994 levels? Could the Minister of Finance, in accordance with the party line, take the word of the many experts who have criticized his action since he became Minister of Finance, especially his calculations? Already, major budget surpluses have been announced. With the minister there are often discrepancies between the forecasts and reality of between 50% and 60%.

When will transfer payments be reinstated? What new policies could the government announce to make things just a little fairer for Quebecers?

[Labelling Of Genetically Modified Foods, June 12th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in this important debate on the whole issue of the labelling of genetically modified foods.

I must first of all commend my colleague from Louis-Hébert, who undertook her initiative on this issue a year ago. Today, she has already gathered throughout Quebec 60,000 signatures on the petition supporting her initiative, that is legislation requiring the government to label GMOs.

I was listening earlier to my Liberal colleague talking about transparency. I heard him talk in his speech about concepts, theories, great philosophical considerations, but he did not talk about any concrete measure to support my colleague's initiative. I was astounded when he said he had great confidence in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

My colleague approached the Commission d'accès à l'information to try to become acquainted with the process regulating the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to learn how one determines what is a GMO and what is not.

This morning, I heard the Liberal member say that everything hangs on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I have my opinion with regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, because I have been called upon a few times to participate in some missions overseas. What are they doing with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? They are making it into a propaganda instrument, what I often call a “Canada approved” seal.

When they are overseas, government representatives are great democrats, incredibly open-minded. Back in the House, the government no longer practices democracy but information control.

If the Liberal member has a paper on the process used to determine what is a GMO and what is not, I strongly call upon him to pass it on to us and most of all to tell the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to inform us on the process, because we do not know it yet. The steps we are now taking show that there are seven or eight ministers involved in the GMO issue and nobody has been able to explain the process fir determining what is a GMO and what is not.

I can go even farther. In this government, there is a new trend. They now talk in terms of risk management, on such a serious issue as genetically modified foods. They might take a risk— that is how the Liberals think—and then they will see. That is risk management, and on an issue as important as this one. At the present time, there are a few countries which are following this risk management approach, which is a kind of compromise to avoid having to confront and settle the question of GMOs.

I insist that the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance change their minds on this. The work of my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, as well as that of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, aimed at tabling this legislation so that there will be mandatory labelling of GMOs is but the beginning of a process aimed at clarifying matters.

All that we are calling for at the present time is to have labelling made mandatory and to have the government invest the essential resources, both financial and research resources, into lending some credibility to Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, so that they are not put in a position of being both judge and jury.

I trust that the Liberals will understand the importance of this debate. We are already aware that there have been problems with certain crops, because Canada is lagging behind many of the other countries as far as monitoring GMOs is concerned. I have already said, and say again, as do some of the farmers in my riding, when the day comes that people have any doubt whatsoever about whether our products contain any GMOs, in this era of global trade, the shipment of wheat or any other product that has been genetically modified will not get out of the country. This will mean significant losses for the economy.

The European Union, Japan, Brazil, even the United States, have started work on mandatory labelling, on specific means to ensure identification of what is a GMO and what is not. Meanwhile, once again here in parliament, in the statements by ministers, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the discussion is still around concepts and theories, and not concrete measures, things that might make both the agricultural industry and the consumer feel more secure?

Some producers have invested a great deal of money in organic farming, and, because of the government, they stand to loose a great deal of that money. We are working hard to get a certification program for organic farmers.

In view of the great risk associated with genetically modified plants, it is absolutely essential that the government take action.

I would like to say a word about the behaviour of Liberal members since the beginning of this debate, especially since we succeeded in having the Standing Committee on Agriculture hold public hearings. We realize how unaware they are of the import of this debate and all the consequences of this crucial issue.

Let me remind the House of the countries that have taken concrete steps. In April 2000, the European Union submitted regulations on which plants are genetically modified. Mexico has followed suit. As soon as 2001, Japan will implement a mandatory labelling policy. Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and even India have also taken action. These countries are now conducting tests to sort out the mandatory labelling issue.

In Canada, with the Liberal government, we are talking about concepts and theories, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency which is supposed to give us an incredible level of security in our health controls.

A moment ago, when I was listening to the remarks of my colleague opposite, I had the impression he was reading a speech that had been written from beginning to end by Health Canada. This is to say that these people are not serious and that they do not understand the scope of the GMO issue. When the economic and health consequences will be known, those who already oppose compulsory labelling will be held accountable at the next election.

The public is aware of this issue. People have been asking many questions. They want to know what is in their food. It is fundamental. Producers want to know what kind of seed they are planting. This is also fundamental.

Why does the government still refuse compulsory labelling of GMOs when Canada's main trading partners have adopted it? There will be an imbalance somewhere down the road.

But it is reducing the issue to one of risk management, of losing millions in exports, and of managing possible risks to the health and safety of producers.

I hope that in the coming days, the Liberals will discuss the matter, change their mind and rally to the position of the Bloc Quebecois, which is more realist and concrete, which provides for safety measures and, most importantly, promotes a cause that is very important for today's society.