Odina Desrochers

[Richard Verreau, June 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Richard Verreau, our great tenor, has conquered several generations of Quebecers and has also made his mark on the international scene.

Mr. Verreau was recently made an officer of the Ordre national du Québec in the National Assembly's red room, at the annual ceremony presided by the Premier of Quebec, Lucien Bouchard.

Richard Verreau is now living in Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, a charming town in the riding of Lotbinière, located along the majestic St. Lawrence River, of which he has become a staunch protector by advocating the cleaning up and maintenance of its shores.

Richard Verreau, all Quebecers are proud of you. Congratulations.

[Canada Transportation Act, June 1st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-34. My remarks will focus on the following three areas.

First, I wish to immediately say that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-34 for the following reasons: as we see it, this bill authorizing financial assistance to western producers is a form of subsidy in disguise. I will explain why.

Second, we believe that the government's timing in introducing Bill C-34 is nothing but a play for votes in western Canada, where the Canadian Alliance has a strong base.

Third, I will show that this government is inconsistent and that there is no link with Canada's transportation policy because the measures in this bill address western issues only.

I will, if I may, give a short background. A few minutes ago, the Minister of Transport said that there had been broad consultation and that he had worked closely with Justice Estey and reviewed the Kroeger report. However, there seems to be a real dichotomy between what this report says and the results we saw a few weeks ago.

First of all, on October 5, 1999, the Minister of Transport thanked Mr. Kroeger for his great effort in trying to solve the problem of grain handling in Western Canada. He also said that this report would be followed up with a study and that he was going to address the 12 to 15 recommendations contained in the report. After the report was tabled, three public information sessions were held. Finally, the federal government's policy was released a few weeks ago.

I will address one of the recommendations of this voluminous report. This report was submitted to the three ministers who announced the federal government's intentions a few weeks ago.

It was submitted to the Minister of Transport, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. At that time, the three of them said that they were going to take into consideration all of the recommendations made in the report in question.

I will read the first recommendation contained in the report's conclusion. It says:

The Estey report urges special measures be taken to revitalize some of the ports in the grain handling and transportation system; the Ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill, and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

The report in question is the one from October 1999.

The same three ministers turn up again on May 10, 2000—the same three tenors, namely the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Natural Resources responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food—to announce to us that the policy will apply to the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay and Churchill.

The St. Lawrence Seaway was forgotten, yet it is, as hon. members are aware, an important link for the economy of Quebec. How can the Minister of Transport come this morning to announce to us with great fanfare that he was acting on the Estey report, when one of its recommendations is not even included in the May 10, 2000 press release?

I wondered if there had been a mistake, if perhaps the three ministers had not read certain parts of the report. I like to point out the things the Liberals do. Often, by putting documentation together, we can see that things get lost.

On May 29,2000, the Minister of Transport introduced a bill to reform legislation on grain. Once again, the minister said he had consulted and acted on the Estey report and that this was all being done in collaboration with his colleagues. Here is the conclusion of the press release that explained in broad terms the content of Bill C-34, which we are debating today:

A memorandum of understanding between the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and the Minister responsible for the CWB will be in place by the time the legislation takes effect.

We are at second reading today.

The memorandum will provide for the phasing in of more competitive tendering by the CWB for logistical services for its grain shipments through the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay and Churchill.

Once again, the government has forgotten the first recommendation of the report, which said clearly they would be through the ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill and the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Do members know what that means? It means that once again the Liberals opposite are ignoring the existence of Quebec. The entire policy turns on the people in the west.

In the short term, for the entire economy of Quebec and the ports that operate along the seaway—Montreal, Quebec City, Baie-Comeau, Port-Cartier and Sept-Îles—this means major economic losses. In the short and medium terms, it means the government wants to eliminate the seaway and follow other avenues, so as once again to put Quebec at a disadvantage.

Today, we are considering Bill C-34, the grain bill. But all what this government has done with respect to transportation since 1997 is close control towers in small airports and hand back aging ports requiring major investments to municipalities, without throwing in any interesting subsidies.

This government promised to return ports to municipalities and other paramunicipal agencies, but the ports it is giving back are in terrible shape. With this policy, it is actually further reducing the effectiveness of these five ports, which underpin the economy of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

There is talk of savings and development. This decision even hurts Ontario, because the Great Lakes will now be bypassed. There are also ports on the Great Lakes.

What does this government want? The crisis now facing western producers is also related to the rules of international trade. We know that these rules are strict and that they do not allow any leeway for governments trying to provide support.

The Canadian government promised the WTO to reduce export subsidies and domestic measures and, at the same time, open up the market. What are they doing with Bill C-34? They are taking $175 million, sending this amount to help with grain transportation, and this becomes a subsidy in disguise designed to placate western producers who are mad at the federal government.

The federal government has always turned towards western Canada. If this government had used the normal means of intervention to help these people in crisis, the World Trade Organization would have said “You are not entitled to do so”. With Bill C-34, this government, which specializes in camouflage, managed to use a disguised subsidy of $175 million to help westerners.

What did that same government do when the Quebec pork producers were in crisis? Nothing. It hid behind the framework agreement between the federal minister of Agriculture and his provincial counterparts. What did the federal government do to help Quebec sheep producers with the scrapie situation? Nothing. What is it doing now to help the very many cranberry growers in my riding? Nothing, once again. On the other hand, it managed to find $175 million to help western producers.

When I hear this government talking about its national vision, its vision from east to west, I find that the vision of Bill C-34 starts at Manitoba and runs west to the Pacific, with the entire eastern part of the country having been left out.

As well, they are attacking the port infrastructures of Quebec by not even including in this bill the St. Lawrence Seaway, which directly links Ontario and Quebec with the United States and beyond. It does not take an advanced course in economics to understand that things do not operate east-west, but that what needs to be developed is north-south.

Once again, this government continues to repeat its historical errors. It has no national vision. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-34. It is a vote-seeking bill. There have been election rumours for the past few weeks. The Bloc Quebecois is dying to get out there against the federal Liberals. The Bloc Quebecois is eager to settle its accounts with them.

We saw this in the case of the Young Offenders Act with the Minister of Justice including standards in the legislation, once again in deference to the west. Today, with Bill C-34, we see the Minister of Transport is continuing the same practice in an effort to mollify the west. But Quebecers will not be taken in by the pre-election manoeuvring of the government opposite.

The Minister of Transport should reread the entire Estey report, especially the first recommendation. The Minister of Transport should also think nationally—one policy from east to west and not one for just four provinces.

His colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, should be made aware of the problems of Quebec producers, take his courage in hand and help them too—which he has not done.

I can understand the third member of the trio, obviously. He is one of the few Liberals from western Canada who is established in his riding and, in addition, he is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I understand he supports this and that he is happy to have the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food support Bill C-34.

All we have seen since the report is a sort of process in which this government is once again neglecting the east and forgetting Quebec.

I would also like to point out what this means for transportation. This week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development came down quite hard on the current Minister of Transport. I am going to talk about the Minister of Transport's policy. I am no longer talking about the agricultural sector, about grain, or about ports, but about the airlines.

This minister does not even have the courage and leadership to sit down the two parties involved, Canadian International and Air Canada, so that they can try to harmonize the various collective agreements governing their employees. What do we have right now in airports all over Canada? Complete chaos, and the frustration can be seen in employees' eyes. Who is getting hurt? Consumers, the people using the airlines.

This shows that this government and this Minister of Transport bungle everything they touch. We know that the airports are in a mess right now. The St. Lawrence Seaway is being ignored. The government is introducing western-oriented policies. Eastern Canada and Quebec are being forgotten. It is high time that this Minister of Transport started paying attention to these issues and finding solutions.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-34 and I will again give the reasons why.

We feel that $175 million for western producers is a form of subsidy in disguise, a way to get around the rules of international trade. It is also nothing more than a play for western votes.

In addition, the bill completely ignores the reality of Quebec's economy, and the first recommendation in the Estey Report, by failing to address the issue of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by 6,247 inhabitants of the riding of Lotbinière, who are calling on the Parliament of Canada to take all necessary steps to identify and recommend, as quickly as possible, concrete means for dealing with the excessive price hikes for petroleum products, and to permanently regularize pricing, particularly now, just before the tourist season, when oil companies are getting ready once again to exploit consumers in Quebec.

[Transfer Payments, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government is constantly trying to include tax points in the contribution for health to create a smokescreen.

Will the minister finally agree with Mr. Kent that this is a “stupid” argument that it does not make “any sense”?

[Transfer Payments, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Tom Kent is a former deputy minister under the government of Lester B. Pearson. His actions are said to have marked Canadian social policies, particularly health policies.

Yesterday, Mr. Kent said before a Senate committee that the main threat to our health system was the federal government itself.

Does the Minister of Health agree with Mr. Kent that this government violated the commitment made by the federal government in the sixties by making drastic cuts to transfer payments, since 1995?

[Petitions, May 3rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by 123 people. The petitioners call upon parliament to quickly pass legislation making it mandatory to label all foods that are totally or partially genetically modified.

Once again, the residents of Lotbinière are showing their support for the efforts by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert on this issue.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise today in this debate I would describe as one of the most important ones going on.

This issue has been amply studied. We are debating this very important question today thanks to the work of my colleague from Louis-Hébert and the members of my party, who worked extra hard to enable us to have a real debate on this issue of the GMOs.

First, I will touch upon two points which, I think, are of interest for farmers. Since the riding of Lotbinière has one of the highest concentrations of farming in Quebec, I want to talk about the consequences of not labelling seeds and agricultural exports in general. Second, I want to talk about organic farming, which was adopted by many farmers in my riding who are very concerned about the ever increasing presence of GMOs.

Let us begin with the international context. On April 12, 2000, the European Union amended its regulations on genetically modified organisms, which were adopted in 1982, to impose mandatory labelling. Japan did the same thing and Korea is about to do likewise. The countries of E.U., Japan and Korea are countries to which Canada and Quebec export on a regular basis.

If those countries begin to wonder whether or not our agricultural exports contain GMOs, our producers could lose millions of dollars. This is why it is so important for Canada to follow the example of these countries and impose mandatory labelling.

There is a lot of talk about GMOs these days. There may be some interesting things with regard to GMOs, but there is also the whole issue of international marketing. Last October, I attended a meeting, the last one before what can now be called the Seattle fiasco, where GMOs were at the forefront of discussions among the various countries present at that meeting, namely countries from South, Central and North America.

It is imperative that the federal government act quickly in this area to reassure farmers and also to show its biggest clients that it is making every effort to see to it that agricultural exports to those countries do not contain any GMOs. Those were my comments regarding the economic side of the issue.

Now, let us look at the side of the issue that is of greater interest to the riding of Lotbinière, namely the future of organic farming. It is a known fact that transgenic seeds are more expensive than traditional seeds. This means that farmers must have an increased yield for that practice to be cost-effective. It seems that the yield of GMOs varies greatly depending on the area and the type of soil, and some studies apparently show that the yield is often equal or even inferior to that of traditional seeds. What is Canada doing to ensure that serious studies on GMOs are done?

With all the cuts to research and development budgets, the only studies that are now available to the Canadian government are studies done by companies that produce GMOs. So how can the government have a serious policy on the future of GMOs? Without long term studies, what will we know about the effects of GMOs on cultivated soils and on the environment around the farms?

The introduction and large scale production of GMOs is a real threat to organic farming. In the riding of Lotbinière, as well as in many others agricultural ridings in Quebec, there are pioneers. People have been fighting for 15 or 20 years. There are more and more who are responding to a trend, to a demand by consumers for organic farming. In this respect, I want to mention someone who is very well known in my region, namely Gérard Dubois, of Plessisville. As a member of the UPA, he introduced these notions of organic farming.

Presently, these people are concerned because we do not know how a field containing transgenic seeds may be affected. What would happen to another field farmed organically?

Genetically modified plants pollinate plants grown in surrounding fields. This is called the gene flow, because genes may be dispersed by wind, insects or animals over a distance of up to 10 kilometres, according to certain evaluations. For producers of organic plants and food products, this represents a real threat of contamination to their fields by neighbouring transgenic crops.

If we do not know that seeds contain GMOs, and a producer happens to plant such seeds, one can imagine what the consequences could be for an organic farmer established a kilometre or two away if the transgenic seeds were to mix with the organic ones.

Organic farmers have made enormous efforts. They have to abide by very strict standards in order to obtain the certification of their crops. Once again, if we ever discovered that there was even the slightest possibility of contamination by genetically modified seeds or some of their by-products, those people would see all their efforts of several years reduced to nothing. They could lose their certification if their neighbours were producing genetically modified plants close to their own fields.

This is a matter of common sense. How can we ask of organic producers that they start a business, put in the efforts and market organic products if the arrival of genetically modified seeds and plants constitutes a permanent threat to organic products? The federal government must act quickly.

At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the potential threats to the agricultural industry and our exports to countries which have already moved towards mandatory labelling. In a riding such as mine, organic producers also feel threatened by the presence of genetically modified foods.

I could keep talking for a long time on this issue because I am vitally concerned with it. During the last two weeks of recess, I had the opportunity to meet agricultural producers who told me about their concerns.

I am very pleased to support the motion moved by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert. It reads as follows:

That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making 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.

We intend to make another effort to inform the population of Lotbinière and make it aware of the issue. On June 3, we will be holding a symposium organized by the Centre agronomique de Sainte-Croix, which is affiliated with Laval University. Experts will be in attendance. Once again, we will bring ourselves to date on this most important issue of GMOs.

[Petitions, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition signed by 1,050 inhabitants of the riding of Lotbinière who are calling on parliament to review the provisions of the Employment Insurance Act concerning the determination of regional employment insurance rates so as to include the federal riding of Lotbinière in Economic Region No. 40, Central Quebec.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, while consumers, farmers and scientists are concerned about the long term impact of GMOs, the Minister of Health claims that all products undergo an exhaustive risk assessment.

How can the minister make such a statement when a study shows that, out of 27 products approved as GMOs, only 10 were tested for toxic effect, and none were tested for potential allergenic effects?

[Income Tax Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this situation that exists throughout Quebec is of great concern to me. I hear about it particularly in my riding, because I often come across mechanics in restaurants or garages and they tell me about this injustice done to them. They are not allowed any deductions from their taxable income for the tools they are required to buy to practice their trade.

Knowing that other tradesmen have access to such a deduction, we can see that the government encourages inequities and has tremendous difficulty taking action to contribute to the advancement of Quebec society.

In the report that was prepared following the December 1997 prebudget consultations in which I took part, it was recognized that the need was there. The public was asking that legislation be passed quickly to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of the tools they are required to buy.

Today is March 30, 2000, almost three years later, and yet nothing has been done. This goes to show once again that this government waits and then waits some more, and drags its feet on issues that penalize people. In this case, it is mechanics.

I am very pleased to support the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans. I also thank all the members of the opposition who listened carefully to the demands of the Bloc Quebecois and who support this bill, which will hopefully find some support among federal Liberals.

This is the second time that I speak to this important bill. When we made similar demands in June 1999, there was talk about a government surplus of several billion dollars. That was what the Minister of Finance was hinting at.

Now that the Minister of Finance has a budget surplus of tens of thousands of dollars, although it is still hard to find out the real figures, hard to be really informed about the Canadian economic reality, he ought to accede to what is being called for in Bill C-205.

This bill defends principles in which I believe strongly. I will tell hon. members what the objectives and principles are that must be obtained in this legislation.

First of all, mechanics must be given fair treatment as far as taxation is concerned, on an equal footing with farmers, and in harmony with that already afforded to chain saw operators, artists and musicians.

Secondly, this bill is aimed at lessening the financial burden on mechanics imposed by the requirement to purchase their own tools, and very costly ones.

Just think of the young mechanic, fresh out of school, and often with a student loan, having to purchase thousands of dollars worth of tools in order to get a job. After working for a year, he is not even entitled to a tax deduction for the new tools he has acquired. As far as I am concerned, this is social injustice.

Now, moving on to another of the objectives I support. This bill offers a remedy for the serious shortage of workers in automobile-related fields. We know that it is getting harder and harder to recruit mechanics, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and the like.

In my region, in the RCM de l'Érable, the LDB is doing a lot of promotion to try to find 300 people who could immediately get work in business in Plessisville, Princeville and Lyster.

I also learned that the same situation prevails at the other end of my riding, namely in Laurier-Station and Saint-Apollinaire, where plants are also looking for people who are able to work.

If the government does not make the necessary efforts to prepare for the future, to help our young people, how can we ensure the viability of a region such as Lotbinière and that of all the regions of Quebec?

The problem described in Bill C-205 is one of a number of factors which, year after year, significantly affect our regions. Unfortunately, people are constantly leaving the regions. Think of all the efforts made by our ancestors, by the pioneers, all their collective achievements, all their hard work. Because of actions such as those of the federal government, the foundations that helped build the Quebec society are being eroded.

It is time to wake up and take charge. Each of Quebec's region has its own wealth, its own beauty, its own features. In each of these regions, there are motorists, people who use their cars or their trucks. There is pride in having local mechanics in each municipality.

I do not want to wax nostalgic, but 25 years ago, in rural villages, there were essential elements that promoted mutual support and supported the local economy. There was the general store, the local mechanic, a small restaurant, the caisse populaire, the elementary and secondary schools and the church.

Today we realize that most of the small garages in each of the towns have disappeared. Why? Because no measures or laws have been established to ensure some sort of continuity. What does this situation lead to? Gradually, people leave these villages to go and live in larger centres and must give up the heritage that is important to them.

It is high time that the federal government, through its rural and regional development policies, paid attention to this ever more desperate situation throughout Quebec. Today, it is the mechanics. Tomorrow it will be the electricians. Unfortunately, unless something is done, we will see that the major centres in each region and riding will be only ones to have survived.

I encourage all federal Liberals in Quebec and across Canada to join with my colleague, to be part of the support given us by the opposition parties—the Progressive Conservatives, the Canadian Alliance and the NDP—in recognizing that there is a desperate need.

It is urgent that the situation be resolved, in order to correct once and for all this injustice, which is befalling important people, the mechanics. We are proud of them and must keep them. We must support their efforts to work and continue to build with us the rural and regional communities of Quebec.