Marcel Gagnon

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the seniors who were deprived of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, two officials from the Department of Human Resources Development Canada told us in committee that if those seniors managed to live without the Guaranteed Income Supplement, this proves that they did not need this last resort assistance.

I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development to tell us if the statements made by these two officials reflect her department's official position?

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will use all of my remaining 10 minutes, but I want to reiterate that I am extremely interested in the Kyoto protocol issue, as, increasingly, is everyone else.

In oral question period, the leader of the Progressive Conservatives asked the Prime Minister a question. If I remember his question correctly, he asked him if, in ten years, Kyoto would be as successful as the gun registry.

The Prime Minister responded, “In ten years, neither the leader nor myself will be able to reply to this question”. I am sure that I will not be able to reply to this question either. I am almost the same age as the Prime Minister and the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

What interests me is that we are not doing this for ourselves. We are doing it for those who will come after us. As legislators, we are not here for our own good, we do not need to win debates; rather, we are here to hand down the most viable country and planet possible.

Fifty years ago, when I was in college, a teacher told us that in our lifetime we would be able to have breakfast in Montreal and lunch in Paris. We all laughed and said that it was impossible. Today, our planet has become so small that anything is possible. It is even possible to destroy it, and this is what we are doing. If I look at how things were 50 years ago, I can say that my father and my ancestors left us, to me and to people from my generation, an extremely clean planet, compared to what it is today.

Sometimes, I tell my children about the precious things that we had back then. For example, we could catch as many fish as we wanted in the small Sainte-Brigitte River. This was a small but rather extraordinary river. They ask me where that river is located and what happened to the fish. Not only have the fish disappeared, but so has the river. It is the case not just with that river. Considering what we are doing to the earth and to the environment, the legacy we are about to leave to future generations is not something we can be proud of.

The Kyoto protocol is a good thing and it is a beginning. We will ratify it, but then we will have to act. This is important. It is not only the foundation of our economy, but also the foundation of our life.

Before members' statements, I was saying that, personally, I was shocked to see that, whenever we talk about protecting the environment—we saw it again when we discussed GMOs this morning—we only discuss effectiveness in terms of dollars and in relation to the economy. The planet will outlast us, but it is not sure that mankind will continue if we do not develop our world in a more orderly and respectful fashion. We must develop our planet by respecting the environment and by ensuring that it outlasts us while being as clean as possible for our descendants.

As was said prior to oral question period, in the past 12 years, $66 billion was spent on research into improving oil drilling and the petroleum industry in general.

During that time, only some $350 million was spent on developing clean energies, wind energy in particular. It can provide every comfort we require, every comfort we need, while respecting the environment. Yet, there is certainly a great future for renewable energies. This is an area with an incredible job creation potential, and in regions where this type of energy is needed for regional development.

To take areas in Quebec for example, such as the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and the North Shore, these are all areas where windpowered generators could be installed in order to tap energy that would not pollute the planet, would not pollute the environment, and would make it possible for us to develop as we need to develop. We must not cop out by saying, “I won't be around in 10 years to see what has been accomplished”.

I would like to see the Prime Minister, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, myself and all the others of our vintage who will not be around this place in ten years be able to take pride in what we did for those who continue to live on this planet.

The Kyoto protocol must be ratified. I trust that we will reach an agreement with the provinces while respecting them. After all that Quebec has done to protect the environment, it ought not to be forced now to pay its share for what others did not do. Quebec has been vigilant; there is still work to be done, but it has been vigilant. Energy in Quebec is cleaner than what is used elsewhere.

However, I feel there is a problem in Quebec that we must address, and that is the automobile. There is another mindset today that means that we have to go around in vehicles that use two to three times the gas used in the 1980s. Back then, we could buy cars that used six, seven, or eight litres of fuel every 100 kilometres. Today, more and more people are going around in cars built like tanks. In the middle of the city we see four wheel drive, all terrain vehicles that were designed to navigate woods or steep inclines. Why? Where is the comfort in polluting the planet in such an unbelievable way?

I heard a survey on the radio last week, where people were asked, “Would you like to have an all terrain vehicle with four wheel drive that costs $85,000?” The respondents said, “I would like to have one, but I could never afford it”. When asked, “If you could afford it, would you buy one?”, people said “Yes”. Then they were asked, “Even if the vehicle uses 20 litres of fuel every 100 kilometres, would you buy it anyway?” The answer was, “Yes, I would buy it anyway”. To some extent, that is what is happening now, as 75% of all cars on the road are unbelievable gas guzzlers.

Maybe Kyoto could help us think about this. The obligation to reduce our share of pollution will probably lead us to make choices that would be more logical for all citizens and more logical with respect to the development of the planet and the legacy we leave for coming generations.

[École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, he may have heard about it in caucus, but nothing has been done for the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe. This is a repetition of what happened with the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.

Will the minister admit that if Quebec were sovereign, it would not need to come on bended knee to Ottawa for money and permission for its institutions?

[École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, December 9th, 2002]

Yet, they have done nothing; they do not deserve commending, they did nothing.

Will the minister admit that the work done by his colleagues on this has been pitiful and has led to his being mistaken regarding the facts and deadlines, thus contradicting the assistant dean of the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, Mr. Dallaire?

[École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week and again today, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was bragging about what his colleagues, the federal Liberal members from Quebec, had done in connection with the École de médecine vétérinaire de Saint-Hyacinthe.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 9th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am indeed very happy to add my voice to the many who have spoken to the Kyoto protocol. I support ratification of the Kyoto protocol and I think we must do it as quickly as possible.

However, there is one thing that bothers me a bit. Once the agreement is signed, I wonder when it will come into effect. We have heard talk of 2010, but this is a very urgent matter. This urgency should move us to act more quickly. In order to comply with this agreement, we will need to take certain measures. These measures will need to be taken by everyone. Also, we will need to follow the polluter-pays principle. Everyone knows that Quebec has taken care to protect the environment.

It is imperative that the protocol come into effect and that we forget about money for a minute. I am tired, and people in general are tired, of the fact that whenever the Kyoto protocol and protecting the environment are mentioned, money always comes up. It is as though money were more important than a healthy planet. As a grandfather, I would like to leave a healthy planet as a legacy to my grandchildren, instead of a planet that is more polluted. Unfortunately that is what is happening.

When I was an MNA in Quebec, I was assistant to Quebec's first Minister of the Environment, Marcel Léger, in 1976. I had the opportunity to get involved in important environmental issues. The problem remains the same: when the environment is the topic, so is money, but people forget that we are also talking about health and our future. We are also talking about the pleasure of living on a healthier planet, rather than one that is deteriorating.

In the 1980s, the pulp and paper industry experienced a major crisis. I was the member in charge of the issue for the Government of Quebec. We told the industry that it needed to clean up its act, and modernize. They claimed that the industry would go bankrupt. More than 20 years later, there is not one company in the pulp and paper sector that would want to go back to its old ways, when waste was dumped into the St. Lawrence and into lakes. The industry itself has said that cleaning up its act has paid off.

When I hear arguments that focus solely on the dollar sign and on the economy, when what is at stake is the future of our planet, I find that demoralizing. Not just for myself, but for those who will come after me, my grandchildren, your children perhaps, and those who will form the next generations. It is high time a decision was made to do something, and made promptly.

I have lived through the Saguenay floods and the ice storm in Quebec in the late 90s. I was in Europe when a hurricane cut a terrible swath through the forests of France.

I had an opportunity to work with and drive some of the forestry workers at that time. Similar things are happening again. This year we again heard news reports of hurricanes, of destruction leading to loss of lives and possessions. This is because greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet at a terrible pace.

I think that this is what ought to be of concern to us. At the same time, of course, it must not be a matter of making the same people, the same province, foot the bill every time. For example, Quebec has for years been making efforts to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, the energy developed in Quebec is less polluting than that developed in other provinces. I think, however, that agreement must be reached between the provinces on the most logical possible solution, and the costs must be allocated as honestly as possible. The costs must not be feared, however. Returning to the example I gave just now, the pulp and paper industry's investment in protecting the environment is paying off, particularly since it is a matter of protecting the planet on which we live.

The Kyoto protocol is the subject of a debate that we have not heard the end of. This agreement must be ratified and then action must be taken as soon as possible.

I was looking at a magazine featuring cars this morning. For the past 20 years, we have had the technology to make car engines more energy efficient. In 1980, I personally saw a Cadillac that ran on a small four cylinder engine. The car operated and carried its passengers beautifully. There were not any problems and it was comfortable. Today, we have gone back to driving gas guzzlers. It is almost scandalous. There are vehicles that use 18 to 20 litres of fuel every 100 kilometres. It does not make any sense. I hope that with agreements such as Kyoto, we will surely find a way to decrease energy consumption and to develop clean energies. It is possible.

There has not been as much investment in developing renewable and clean energies as there was for developing fossil energy such as oil. Since 1990, that is, 12 years ago, $66 billion was invested in developing fossil and polluting energies, whereas only roughly $350 million was invested in clean energies. Could we possibly become logical enough again to create employment not only in the oil industry, but also in the development of clean energies? We will still enjoy all the comfort we need, but without polluting the planet, like we are now.

It is simply a question of being honest with people and with future generations, my grandchildren, your children and anyone who will inhabit this planet, so that it will remain habitable.

[Food and Drugs Act, December 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this debate has come back to the House again and, unfortunately, it will have to come back several more times before people realize that consumers have the right to decide what they eat.

The previous comments are quite shocking, in my opinion. The suggestion is that if people don't like genetically modified foods and if they want these foods to be labelled, then it is because they are suspicious and want to hurt trade.

Like the hon. member who just spoke, I served on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We heard experts speak about genetically modified foods. I also had the opportunity to sit once or twice on the Standing Committee on Health, which was discussing the same subject matter. I attended the committee's meetings and heard different sides of the issue.

Last year, along with my hon. colleague who is the Bloc's international relations critic, I also attended an event on World Food Day. We heard people working in developing countries speak about their experience.

I remember the urgent appeal they made when they said, “Be careful of genetically modified products, because this is not a way to help developing countries”. This is not known this for sure.

For example, when the day comes that only a handful of companies own all the seed, this is not going to help the developing countries. If we are going to provide them with food, this may be open to question, but if we want to make it possible for them to be self-sufficient--the old saying about teach a man to fish, or to garden--there is no proof that genetically modified foods are going to attain that objective.

I am scandalized by the fact that about 95% of the population simply wants to know what it is eating. That is not complicated. The purpose of this bill—which, incidentally is not votable, unfortunately, and which was defeated when introduced last time by the colleagues of the member who introduced the bill this morning—is to require mandatory labelling, to inform the consumer if products sold or purchased contain more than one per cent of a genetically modified food.

It is simply a matter in my opinion of respect for the individual, the consumer. Consumers, it is increasingly said, can influence voting. I remember hearing in committee that consumers are not in favour quite simply because they do not know what will happen 20 years down the road with a transgenic product.

This is, I think, a good reason to question transgenic products, which may well be good. But why should I, as a consumer, not have the right to say that I do not trust them at this time? I am waiting for the results, I would like to have a choice about what I eat.

So let us label the foods we eat, the ones that contain GMOs. That does no harm. We are not pulling genetically modified foods from the market or making it any easier for them to get onto it, just giving the consumer the freedom to choose. I think that there is no greater right than the right to choose what we eat.

I recall mad cow disease 20 years ago in Europe, England in particular. They said it was not serious because sick animals are slaughtered and the meat is edible. As soon as it was well cooked, there was no longer any problem. Twenty years later, it was discovered that the disease could be transmitted to humans. It took 20 years to find that out.

So when I hear a consumer tell me “let us be cautious here”, that is exactly what I as a consumer want to be.

I would like to be able to choose what I eat. For that reason, I do not think mandatory labelling hurts anyone. If there is nothing to be afraid of, if “There is no problem for health”, as indicated by the hon. member, if there truly is no problem for health, then what is there to hide? Why is there resistance to mandatory labelling? If there is no problem, if I have no doubts, if I need not have any doubts, then there is no reason to hide that the food I buy contains genetically modified products.

Out of respect for the consumer and to be able to compete on the European market, labelling should be promoted. In Europe, it is not easy to sell products that are genetically modified. In fact, in some European countries, consumers want to know if the products they buy are genetically modified.

Trade is international. Those are arguments we heard during committee meetings. No one has said, “I guarantee you that genetically modified food does not present any problems”. No one has said that. Everyone says, “It is too new, it is just the beginning. It has already been available on the market for some time now and it will become increasingly available. It is not thought to pose any health risks”. However, no one can confirm this, here, or elsewhere in the world.

I remember taking a trip to Germany with some committee members. In Berlin there was a discussion specifically on the topic we are debating this morning. There too, according to several experts at the table, namely doctors and specialists of all kinds, no one was able to say that GMOs are absolutely safe. Nor could anyone say, “There is a risk”. However, it was agreed that “Time will tell”.

In the meantime, there is no reason not to allow consumers, who know no more than others, to have a choice when it comes to their foods. Choice means labelling and mandatory labelling. Obviously, we support this bill. Unfortunately it is not votable; it will only be debated. However, it allows us to discuss the issue once again. It also allows people to have a voice and to exert pressure.

As I was saying earlier, we are talking about the greatest respect that we could have for consumers. After all, why do the agricultural sector and the food industry exist in the first place? They exist because there are consumers. Without consumers, there would be no agriculture.

I remember, from when I used to work at the UPA in Quebec, that the main concern was always to satisfy consumers. The best way to satisfy them in this case—and it would be easy—would be to say, “We will tell you what you are eating. We will give you a choice. If you like genetically modified foods, you will know that you are eating them. If you want to avoid them, you will probably be able to choose to avoid them”.

In fact, this reminds me that a brewery in Quebec, Unibroue, has announced a GMO-free beer. I do not have to buy this beer, but if I am afraid to purchase other beers, and if I am assured that there are no GMOs in this particular beer, I might choose it. And why should I not have the right to make this choice? I think that we should have mandatory labelling out of respect for consumers. Out of respect for everyone. Labelling would also promote new technologies. It would allow us to learn more about GMOs. It would allow us to take this further.

The Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. However, we do not feel that it goes far enough. Unfortunately, this debate is only for debate's sake, because there will be no vote on the bill.

[Softwood Lumber, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, three months ago, the Bloc Quebecois put forward a plan to help the softwood lumber industry, which included loan guarantees and improvements to the EI plan.

Will the minister tell us whether this sort of measure will finally be put forward by the government?

[Softwood Lumber, June 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier of Quebec came to meet with his counterpart to discuss the softwood lumber dispute.

During this meeting, the Prime Minister of Canada said that he was going to do something for the industry.

Will the Minister for International Trade tell us what immediate measures he intends to take to help the businesses and workers affected by this dispute?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, June 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister forgets that the guaranteed income supplement problem was caused by the negligence of her department for over eight years, and nothing has been done to correct it.

Does the minister intend to make amends and pay back the money owing the most vulnerable members of society?