Odina Desrochers

[World Trade Organization, November 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the WTO negotiations will be getting under way in Seattle on November 30.

Canada has met the commitments it made in the agricultural sector under the GATT agreements. However, our other major trading partners have yet to meet theirs, including in the area of export subsidies and in market access rules.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Before negotiating, should he not demand that the other countries meet their commitments instead of placing Canada's farming industry in a vulnerable position?

[Infrastructure Program, November 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, there is a strong desire to undertake an infrastructure program as soon as possible. Everyone is calling for the negotiations on a new infrastructure program to begin.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will she get on with the business of meeting these requests immediately and not wait until the year 2001?

[Speech From The Throne, November 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short. I think the member for Portneuf will be able to answer it immediately.

What he just mentioned clearly explains one reason why more and more people are leaving our regions. What does he think the federal government should do to stop the exodus to the large urban centres?

[Supply, November 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the member for Louis-Hébert for all the work she is now doing on GMOs.

She has really led the way on this issue, which we all know is a very important one. There is talk about it in my riding of Lotbinière, which is a very agricultural riding. It is also considered an important issue because agriculture and health are intimately linked.

I have often complained that this government gives a lot of attention to trade agreements and finance, but completely overlooks the consumer. It overlooks what we are putting into our mouths.

My colleague from Louis-Hébert has set out on a crusade to bring this issue to the attention of the public, and I am proud of her. It is already having an impact all over Quebec. I hope it will reach as far as Ontario, for people are having trouble truly understanding the reality of Canadian and Quebec farm production.

I would like to spend a moment on the motion by my colleague for Brandon—Souris, which reads as follows:

That this House regrets the failure of the government to recognize the important of Canada's food industries—

I am going to express my thoughts on this situation. I wonder if the government is even aware that there is such a thing as a food industry in Canada, judging by its behaviour.

I will remind this government once again that we all worked together between September and December 1998. We brought in representatives of agriculture from the west and from the east; we heard representatives of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; we heard representatives of the UPA. We heard from everyone involved and we found a marvellous title for the report—maybe marvellous is a bit of an exaggeration, but a good title, one that I thought would really get things moving. I will give it again, because the people over there have poor memories “The Farm Income Crisis in Canada”.

I have spoken in committee or in the House on a number of occasions about this crisis, a term people have great difficulty understanding.

In preparing my speech, I looked up crisis in the Petit Larousse for three definitions. This is a fairly major entry, a whole long paragraph.

From it I selected three definitions. The first refers to a decisive or perilous period in a person's existence. A crisis is also defined as a difficult phase being experienced by a group. Third, when used with the adjective economic, it is defined as an imbalance between economic powers, in particular between production and consumption.

But I said to myself that even if the Liberals hear the definition of the word “crisis”, I will give them a bit of a break. I will relate it to the current situation and will go over each of the definitions to show them what a crisis really is.

A “decisive or perilous period” and we will add “in agriculture” in Canada and Quebec. In the case of “difficult phase being experienced by a group”, the group is Quebec or western farmers. In the case of the “economic crisis”, I think we are in a full blown crisis. I will reread the definition “an imbalance between economic powers, in particular between production and consumption”. This is the reason for today's debate.

The government does not understand what a crisis is. In December 1998, they were made aware of the situation. Nearly a year later, nothing has been done. Even with the links I have made, I am sure the government will remain silent.

This government lacks leadership. It lacks the courage of its convictions and it abdicates its responsibilities in the face of the current crisis. A crisis means there is an emergency. A crisis means there is a need for action. A crisis means it is time to put an end to inertia.

This government, however, has just found another argument for waiting rather than acting and taking decisions. It is saying “We have to be careful in the programs we will establish, because we are going to be negotiating on November 30 at the WTO, the world trade organization”.

When I read the morning papers, one headline read “WTO: minister creates confusion”. I was somewhat concerned. This means once again that this government is really inconsistent and without vision. Its vision is to collect tens of billions of dollars and spend them in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is the vision of this government: to have billions of dollars in its pocket and to let a situation such as currently exists in the west worsen. That is vision too.

Once again, however, the vision stops at the financial and economic levels. The government never talks of farm producers or consumers. How can we expect this government to have vision?

Coming back to the motion introduced by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party, it provides, and I quote:

—by failing to address the serious problems of Canada's agricultural producers, who are suffering from increasing subsidized competition—

Here again, where is Canada's leadership on the three important criteria that will guide the WTO negotiations? As for the decrease in funding, we have done our part. Our commitment under the GATT in 1995 was 15%. This has now climbed to 50%. But, in the meantime, the United States and the European community are refusing to assume their responsibilities.

As for reducing domestic measures, the question is where. We must not turn around and make our agricultural production vulnerable. We must reaffirm it, defend ourselves, and stand firm.

Finally, with respect to market access, we must know our products and defend our market. Not only must we defend economic principles, but we must understand agriculture. Once again, the members opposite are having trouble doing this.

I come back to the Progressive Conservative member's motion:

—by failing to address the serious problems of Canada's agricultural producers, who are suffering from increasing subsidized competition, rising input costs—

Earlier, the member for Louis-Hébert reminded us that financial assistance has been declining since 1993. Yet, costs are rising and we know that the industry is becoming increasingly specialized. There is a need for research and money, but the members opposite are living in a dream world.

Now, let us look at natural disasters. There is a disaster; it is noted; the affected farmers are asked to be patient and told that, when they file their income tax return, the government will look into it. Then the government gets busy juggling figures while the farmers have time to go belly up, as they have no way out.

This government is trying to convince us it can handle crises. This is ridiculous, because we are already close to one. Members can imagine what things would be like if there were really a crisis. The entire country would be in a real mess.

I am therefore calling upon this government once again to show some leadership, courage and vision, to show some sign of being a government capable of understanding the situation. The year is not 1949 or 1959; it is 1999, with the third millennium just around the corner. Yet this government continues to maintain rigid policies, policies that lack any flexibility and continue to heavily penalize agricultural producers.

I maintain that this government has chalked up a total failure in its vision, in its approach to the reality of Canada's and Quebec's farmers, and in its strategy. I say to my Liberal friends, wake up before it is too late.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I understand very well that there are difficulties between Quebec and the other provinces in Canada. The government is not complying with the Constitution.

When it tries to accuse the Government of Quebec of being the bad player in this situation, I hope it carefully listened to or read the economic statement given yesterday by the Minister of Finance and the throne speech. There was talk of setting standards for mobility between provinces. The government is still trying to establish national standards. It is really having a hard time understanding the Quebec reality.

It is not up to Quebec to take the leadership role, to call for a reduction in the problems. The federal government must show leadership. It is up to the Liberal government to lead. It is up to the Liberal government to realize that a Canadian Constitution exists and that each province has jurisdictions. It is up to the Liberal government to get out of jurisdictions belonging to Quebec and the other provinces and to do its job within its own jurisdictions.

I am convinced that, if that happened, the problems between provinces would be solved.

[Supply, November 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to take part in this debate on the whole question of the World Trade Organization.

Understandably, my remarks will focus on agriculture and all the possible repercussions of the WTO negotiations scheduled to begin late this month or early in December.

I became aware of the importance of international trade in April 1998, when I took part in a meeting of the Cairns Group, which gave me a bit of an idea of where Canada stood. As members know, the Cairns Group is made up of about 15 countries with a much more trade-oriented philosophy. A great deal has been said about market access, but we seem to be forgetting fundamental things like the environment or social issues.

Last week, I attended the 10th meeting of the Inter-American Board of Agriculture. Thirty-four countries from the three Americas were present at this meeting in Salvador, in the state of Bahia in Brazil. Here again, I saw that the program under which countries would normally be starting negotiations was far from ready.

Increasingly, we are seeing tensions developing between various growth poles in the world. For example, we were able to see firsthand that more and more Brazil is taking an aggressive approach and becoming an economic player that wants to impose its views on South American countries.

As I said earlier, Brazil is a member of the Cairns Group. Its philosophy is also very trade-oriented and it tends to ignore major priorities in the context of WTO negotiations.

Tension runs so high that, last week, WTO's ambassador in Geneva, Nestor Osorio, could not participate in the meetings held in Brazil because of problems with setting an agenda and getting WTO negotiations under way.

The situation is currently as follows: The United States, Brazil and several North American countries are refusing to include the concept of multifunctionality proposed by the European Union. This is very embarrassing for the WTO ambassador, because negotiations are at an impasse. It is very difficult to set an agenda and to clearly indicate what issues will be raised.

What is Canada's role in all this? What will it do? Canada should be a model, a unifier, or a moderator. We still do not know what its status will be. Yet, this is a unique opportunity for Canada to act as a leader in the integration of the three Americas.

At the present time, two trade powers seem to be emerging, Brazil and the United States. However, Canada could readily play the role of moderator-facilitator, intervening with either the United States or Brazil to get them to understand the importance in the context of negotiation of having a grasp of all the concepts which could help advance the issue worldwide.

Now I shall touch on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or the Canada food police if members prefer, that wonderful propaganda agency, which guarantees to other countries that food is Canada Proof, while systematically refusing within the country to provide elected representatives with information on such important issues as genetically modified foods when asked. What is one's reaction supposed to be when one contacts the food agency and is told “Contact Access to Information and pay for it”. That is why I call the agency the Canada food police.

If we ask questions on the agency here in the House, I can just hear the minister answering “Mr. Speaker, you know, this is an independent agency. I would not like to be accused by the government of interfering in the internal workings of an agency”.

Meanwhile, MPs still have no answers, and the public has no answers. The issue of food inspection control is so vital that, last week again, in Salvador and Brazil, there was much discussion of the whole issue of GMOs, which will be on the agenda.

Where does Canada fit in all this? Despite numerous speeches by my colleague from Louis-Hébert, there is no way of knowing. However, the recent throne speech gave me a few shivers. There is a little sentence in it that indicates quite clearly where the Liberal government is headed, and I will read it:

The government will protect the health of Canadians by strengthening Canada's food safety program, by taking further action on environment health issues, including the potential health risks presented by pesticides, and by modernizing overall health protection for a changing world.

What does that mean? It means that the government is preparing to create a super agency to include health, environment and food issues. We will again have a hard time in this House getting information.

The protests are so strong that the government has decided to back up with the bill it introduced in the last session, Bill C-80. But we know its intentions. I am sure they will come back later one with a more biting offensive to impose Bill C-80 and the new agency on us in 2000.

What does the creation of this super agency mean? It will house all the disciplines required to control information and will Canada, abroad, to show its “Canada approved” seal more, a seal that here will become “Ottawa controlled”. The government will not just be controlling the information coming from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, but all the information having to do with food, health and the environment.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, I intended to concentrate more on the issue of agriculture, which will be the focus of concerns when WTO negotiations begin, possibly in late November or early December, in Seattle.

The purpose of the meeting, it should be noted, is to agree on an agenda and negotiations, which will then begin in earnest, and move to Geneva, where they may go on for months and months, if not years. The whole issue of trade will be up for discussion.

Producers, all the stakeholders in the agricultural community, need to know, to be informed and, last March, with this in mind and with the help of the member for Louis-Hébert and the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I organized a symposium to look at this whole issue and really inform people.

It was attended by 125 people. They all left better informed but, at the same time, more worried, because they can see that the Canadian government does not have the necessary leadership to defend them in WTO talks.

Who is better placed than Quebec to defend the interests of farmers? As members know, Quebec is unique in Canada. We have two completely different income security systems. We have a broadly diversified agricultural sector.

So, if the government really wants to be consistent in all the partnership ideas that it has been promoting since the beginning of the session, it should give a seat to the Quebec government, so that Quebec's elected officials can closely follow WTO negotiations.

We asked the Canadian government to ensure that other countries do their homework. As things stand, the Canadian government has fulfilled most of the commitments it made during the Uruguay Round of negotiations. However, countries such as the United States, the European Community and Japan have not yet fulfilled theirs.

We asked here in this House that when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister for International Trade travel to Seattle later this month they demand, before negotiations begin, that their trading partners do their homework and comply with the commitments they made.

Right now, the situation is very distorted. Let us take a look. The president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Bob Friesen, who was here this morning and who once again deplored the whole federal income security system, says that Ottawa went too far and that Canada reduced subsidies beyond what was expected of it. Mr. Friesen claims that Ottawa could do much more for farmers without violating trade agreements.

Here are some figures. For each dollar received by Canadian farmers, their American and European counterparts receive $2.50, and this does not include the $8.6 billion in assistance that the United States just gave to American farmers. And Canada is going to agree to begin negotiations in spite of such an injustice.

Here are more figures, which clearly demonstrate that the Canadian government is not standing up for our farmers. On the contrary, it has got down on its knees to please its trading partners. In 1998, the OECD estimated that total support provided by agricultural policies amounted to $140 U.S. per capita in Canada, compared to $360 U.S. in the United States and $380 U.S. in Europe. Again, one can see the distortion. One can see that Canada will arrive at the negotiation table and will be at a disadvantage, considering what it has already given up, unlike other countries.

We can see that the agriculture minister's argument about constraints imposed by the WTO does not hold. I should point out that following the GATT treaty signed in 1995—I have been referring to these signatures since the beginning—commitments were made by the various partners. In fact, it is during that meeting that the World Trade Organization was created.

In 1995, GATT members had to pledge to reduce their farm subsidies by 15%. Canada did so by giving only 50% of what it is allowed to give under international agreements. By contrast, the United States and Europe are giving 100% of what they are allowed to give. Again, these figures have a distorting effect on the current world market.

The farmers' plight in Canada and Quebec is not simply related to problems of subsidies. It clearly shows the federal government's failure in its farm income support policy.

Let us look together at the federal government's failure in the AIDA program. The federal government is largely responsible for the present situation. I know that the agriculture minister once again announced a program, earlier, but we do not know the terms of it, how it will be implemented or when it will take effect. In the meantime, the farm crisis in the west continues.

In the area of farm income, the current situation proves that AIDA does not work and cannot guarantee farmers a decent living standard. The government cannot deny responsibility for the situation, and it contributes to maintaining the farm income crisis.

As I said this morning, in December 1998, all parties pulled together to find a title for a report. They talked about a farm crisis. A crisis means specific and speedy action is necessary to help people. Today, November 4, 1999, statistics continue to be bandied about, figures are being brought out to help people, but the situation is unresolved.

The main problem comes from the fact that AIDA, as it stands today, denies benefits to a number of the producers it was intended to help originally. As it now stands, the program will not be paying out in the next two years the $900 million the federal government had announced with great pomp last December. The government will not be able to keep its promises of assistance.

I would like the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to tell us how much of the $900 million has been used up. What became of this money?

Why does the minister not want to be of more assistance to people in a time of crisis? The problems with AIDA in its present form are many and show that the federal government does not really want to come to the assistance of those going through this crisis.

I will give another example. We hear that the forms are very complicated, and so forth. The answer I was given this morning contained a mountain of statistics. I would not have liked to have seen any farmers listening in at the agriculture committee meeting this morning. I think they would have gone away furious. Politicians would not have had much credibility with them, particularly those in the Liberal Party of Canada. We are told that administering a program is a hard task. Yet it was announced in December 1998.

I will give an example. At the time the federal government announced its program on December 12, 1998, the U.S. administration also announced a special emergency program for American farmers, bringing to over $5 billion the additional funding put into agriculture in 1998-1999.

Despite some delays, American farmers got their payments more promptly than their Canadian counterparts. Here again, the technocracy and bureaucracy has put Quebec farmers in a position of weakness, less able to compete.

It is high time this government woke up to reality. First of all, I will come back to a point I have already made: the federal government ought to accept the presence of representatives of the Government of Quebec because of their type of agricultural production. It is completely different from that of the rest of Canada. That is the first point. There are two completely different income security systems. In some areas, we are more proactive. We have a far more diversified agricultural industry.

If the Canadian government has any desire to prove its willingness to become a reliable partner with Quebec, it must give Quebec a seat at the WTO meeting in Seattle, not only in Seattle, but throughout the negotiations, because we need to monitor what this government plans to do. We need to know what is going to happen. We need to be kept informed of the various stages to the negotiations, so as to ensure that the hard-won advances of Quebec agricultural producers are maintained. As Bloc Quebecois MPs, my colleagues and I will defend Quebec to the very end.

[Division No. 6, October 20th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak on Bill C-6, the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Bill C-6, which was introduced by the industry minister on October 15, is nothing new. It is identical to Bill C-54, which was introduced by the federal Minister of Industry, on October 1, 1998. It fits in perfectly with the recent throne speech. This bill, therefore, was part of the recycled material found in the throne speech.

The government is trying two years later to make new things out of its old 1997 stuff. Once again, the government lacks imagination. However, it certainly is not short on imagination when it wants to interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. Last spring and also for the last few days, the Bloc Quebecois has expressed its opposition to Bill C-6.

During the fight led by my hon. colleague from Mercier, I had the opportunity to speak two times. All Quebecers had asked that Bill C-54 not apply in their province. The Parti Quebecois government, along with the Conseil du Patronat, the Quebec Bar Association, the CSN, the Chambre des notaires, and Option Consommateurs, had asked that the bill be withdrawn. Quebecers unanimously requested that the bill not apply in Quebec to avoid confusion and to promote the development of electronic commerce.

It is not complicated. If the government really wanted what is best for Quebecers, it would withdraw the bill. I will give a few reasons.

First of all—and this is the federal Liberals' trademark—the Minister of Industry introduced it without consulting the provinces. This bill encroaches on provincial jurisdictions, it is a step backwards for Quebec with regard to the protection of personal information, and its application in Quebec will create confusion. It is legally flawed, and it uses electronic commerce as an excuse to make an incursion into civil law. These six major arguments that should convince the federal Minister of Industry to withdraw this bill.

Before my colleagues even had a chance to express their opposition, before several of my colleagues even had the opportunity to present their arguments, the government House leader, true to form, with the support of his colleagues, decided once again to bring forward a time allocation motion to curtail debate. Where is democracy going in this parliament? The Liberals use this kind of motion on a regular basis to prevent democratically elected members from speaking freely on important issues, such as the protection of personal information.

However, many Liberal members who chair committees have systematically leaked information to the media. Confidential reports have been disclosed in the newspapers even before being tabled in the House of Commons. The federal government has no respect for democracy. It is high time parliamentarians from all parties addressed this problem.

What are the Liberal members opposite doing to defend Quebec with regard to Bill C-6? Nothing. They are silent on this issue, as they are on the Onex proposal, even though 5,000 jobs are threatened. They have nothing to say on the issue of hepatitis C victims, on the issue of employment insurance and on the issue of pay equity.

In 1980, Quebec had 73 Liberal members in Ottawa, 73 out of 75, and they were also said nothing when the federal government patriated the Constitution in 1982.

When the very illustrious Pierre Elliott Trudeau occupied 24 Sussex, he must have said “Way to go, Jean. You are doing a great job. The members from Quebec are keeping their mouths shut. You can go on centralizing and doing what you want. You can keep on walking all over Quebec. Your gang of members has realized that your way was best”. All this is revolting. It is revolting to realize that, generation after generation, throughout the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the federal Liberal government has kept to the same party line.

Between 1968 and 1984, with the exception of the brief reign of the Progressive Conservatives under Joe Clark, and from 1993 to the present, Liberal members have never broken the silence imposed on them, particularly when it comes to defending Quebec's interests.

Fortunately, the Bloc Quebecois is there to defend those interests. That is the Bloc Quebecois' raison d'être, and I am proud to be a member of this team of men and women who are fighting for Quebec.

So, as a good Liberal member, and a good minister from Ontario, the federal Minister of Industry therefore acted unilaterally and tabled his bill on personal information and electronic commerce without waiting for the results of the consultation he himself initiated.

I give you two examples. On June 12, 1998, at a meeting in Fredericton, the ministers responsible for the information highway agreed, and I quote from the press release given out after the meeting:

—to consult with each other, when appropriate, when considering the advisability of legislating the protection of personal information in the private sector.

On September 21, 1998 the federal Minister of Industry forwarded a copy of proposed legislation to his provincial counterparts, asking for their comments on a bill the government was getting ready to table. But there was no follow-up.

I repeat that this government is doing everything it can to interfere in areas that are Quebec's jurisdiction alone. The bill introduced by the Minister of Industry to protect personal information and electronic commerce was obviously long awaited, but the result was a big disappointment.

In conclusion, on behalf of Quebecers and all stakeholders in Quebec who have in turn spoken out against Bill C-54, now Bill C-6, we are again asking the federal government to show, just once in this legislation, just once in this Parliament, that it is listening to Quebec and to Quebecers, and to withdraw Bill C-6.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

How do Canadians and Quebecers react to such a document? As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I compared the throne speech from 1997 with this year's speech. I added small paragraphs and changed some titles and the end result was the same.

The 1997 speech was just as vague in terms of commitments. Two years later, nothing has changed. The plight of Quebec's unemployed is glaring. We are faced with a crisis in the fishery. The government is trying to pass legislation to intrude into provincial jurisdictions, and is using this document to try to make us believe that this is the Canadian way. This sure bodes well for the future.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my answer to the Progressive Conservative member is this: let him find one single line that is clear in the Speech from the Throne.

It is a bunch of vague promises, with no real commitments. The only concrete measure will not be taken this year. It will not be taken in the year 2000, but it might be taken in the year 2001.

[Speech From The Throne, October 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as far as the regions are concerned, this is again an invention by this government, an invention for interference, differing regional rates, so as to penalize all of the unemployed.

The problem does not exist in Lotbinière alone, but also in the neighbouring riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, and colleagues everywhere speak to me of this situation, which must be addressed. Now that I am regional development critic, I must say that this is a situation that is greatly harmful to regional development.

Here is an example. I am in my office and someone comes in to tell me “I am 10 hours short of eligibility for employment insurance”. So I explain the legislation to the person, who goes away. He then meets a neighbour who lives 20 kilometres from him, and that person is getting employment insurance. How is an MP who wants to be fair, and wants to see all his constituents treated justly, to explain such a crazy situation?

There are two major regional county municpalities in my riding, along with three others. There are three Human Resource Development offices. Apart from that there is not a single public servant in my riding, which has a population of 70,000.

This is abnormal, and once again it is the outcome of the famous employment insurance reform, which penalizes everyone in Quebec.