Marcel Gagnon

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 20th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I am required to say it is my pleasure to speak to this bill, but I do not think that is the case. I would be lying to the House if I said that it is my pleasure to speak on this bill, for the simple reason that it is completely unacceptable for us, for all of the provinces and especially for Quebec.

The federal government has the knack when it comes to causing trouble; it is as though they have specialists working on it. When something is working fine, they find a way to introduce legislation to interfere as much as possible in provincial jurisdiction.

The bill contains titles that look good: protecting submerged lands, protecting the environment. By and large, these titles appear to please everyone and it is difficult to argue against them.

Yet this bill interferes directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction, clearly contravenes Canada's constitution. My colleague, the member for Châteauguay, an eminent lawyer, explained to what extent this bill is designed to go against common sense, against the rights set out in Canada's constitution.

A question that comes to mind is: Why does the government do everything it can to show disdain, be insulting and disorganize what should actually be organized? This is the question we may ask ourselves, because if the federal government wants to protect marine areas, I believe it could very well do it within its own area of jurisdiction, without disorganizing what can be easily organized, with the co-operation of all.

I had the opportunity to speak in this House about polluted submerged lands, for example, by Canadian Forces and by the federal government. If a am correct, those submerged lands have been intentionally polluted since 1952. I come back to this matter that is a federal responsibility because it is the polluter who must clean it up.

Back home, there are still 300,000 mortar shells on the bed of lake St-Pierre waiting to be fished out. The banks of the St. Lawrence have been damaged by the navy, by ships, a sector which I believe is entirely a federal jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, we would like to see the federal government assume its responsibilities in that area, which is without a doubt under its jurisdiction. There would be no problem. Everyone would be happy, though I suspect that pleasing Quebec is what the federal government dislikes the most.

We are always left grappling with situations with which the federal government refuses to deal. But when it is a matter of finding ways to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction, for example, they are experts and are impatient to act.

Non only does the government try to duplicate what the provinces are doing, it also tries to do the same within its own areas of jurisdiction. Concerning protection of seabeds, three or four government departments are stepping on each other's toes. They will expand into provincial jurisdictions, namely in the area of environment. So there will be duplication. How can this bill be seen as a way to manage the country efficiently?

I find it somewhat disappointing to have to deliver a speech which goes against common sense, against what we should be doing here and against discussions which could move things forward.

I am always extremely disappointed to see how they do not seem interested in potential areas of cooperation. And yet, there are many of them. We cooperated after the events that took place this fall. The Bloc agreed to cooperate as much as possible for the good conduct of business in the wake of these events.

The discussions held in committee this morning on a bill were intended to further the interests of the whole of Canada and of Quebec. Unfortunately, a bill such as this one leads us to believe that everything is being done to destroy good understanding, scale down the jurisdiction of the provinces and increase dissatisfaction.

The Bloc Quebecois does not support this bill. Indeed, it is not the first time we speak to this legislation. I do not know how much an amendment can change a piece of legislation, but I do think that the best amendment we can put forward is for the government to step aside and work in its field of jurisdiction.

I would ask the federal government to assume its responsibilities and stop wasting our time with issues and legislation whose only purpose is to destroy harmony. It should act to clean up the banks of the St. Lawrence, Lake St-Pierre and the Jacques-Cartier River. It should recognize its responsibilities in these areas instead of constantly trying to annoy provinces and creating overlapping between its own departments.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the interesting speech made by the hon. member. As regards the protection of the resource, he referred to, among other things, the unfortunate experience that we had with the almost total extinction of certain species such as cod.

He also said that the act should go further and include restrictions or means to protect species such as cod.

I wonder if the hon. member could explain that part of his remarks again to make sure that I understood him correctly.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech given by the member for Lac-Saint-Louis. It rekindled happy memories from when we used to work together at Quebec's national assembly. He was already concerned about the environment back then, in Quebec City.

Earlier in the debate, a Liberal member stated—and I will cut to the quick—that the Bloc Quebecois was being mean, that it was apparently here to block it, because there is never enough for the provinces.

Could the member for Lac-Saint-Louis tell me what he thinks of the amendments that were rejected? I believe, as he explained, that everyone agrees with the principle of the bill. The rejected amendments, however, dealt with the requirement to negotiate with the provinces.

The hon. parliamentary secretary said that negotiating was normal. Why then was an amendment to that effect rejected by the government?

The amendments called for the participation of the provinces and consultations with local and aboriginal communities, while reducing the involvement of Heritage Canada, which should not be involved in conservation. The amendments reduced the number of stakeholders in the area. They harmonized the regulations with those of Fisheries and Oceans Canada and ensured that environmental considerations were given precedence over economic considerations.

It seems to me that these are very good amendments that would improve the bill. They show that we are not only here to block, but to move things forward, in the best sense of the word. This type of bill must not encroach on areas of provincial responsibility. I would like to hear the comments of the member for Lac-Saint-Louis on this.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the learned remarks of the Liberal member, I am not surprised that he has found a way of criticizing all those members who have spoken to the bill.

He is accusing the Bloc Quebecois, among others, of never being able to get enough powers for the province. If he had been following this issue he would have realized that we were not speaking just about provincial powers.

When will the member get all federal legislation to respect provincial jurisdiction? This is the battle we are constantly having to fight.

[Softwood Lumber, November 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, at this time of the day, and considering the number of speeches heard on this issue, one is under the impression that everything has been said, or almost.

Still, I want to add my voice to those of my colleagues and thank the Bloc Quebecois for proposing this emergency debate. As we know, an emergency debate does not always enjoy the unanimous support of the House. But I sense that today we are close to it. I am convinced that if there are forestry workers listening to us, at least they will be unanimous.

My region is one of Quebec's most important forestry regions. In the riding of Champlain and surrounding areas, there are close to 3,800 forestry workers. I recently had the opportunity to meet some of them and I can say that, for them, it is urgent that the situation be settled.

When forestry workers in the Haute-Mauricie or elsewhere in Quebec lose their jobs, possibly the only jobs that they can have, they hope for a quick settlement.

In La Tuque and in more remote areas in the bush, the choice of jobs is limited, particularly at this time of the year. When we see plant closures, or when we live in fear of such closures, it is extremely difficult, particularly just two months before Christmas, at the beginning of winter.

Earlier, the minister congratulated the Prime Minister and congratulated himself on the debate and on their efforts to try to settle the softwood lumber issue. I agree that they worked hard, but the fact is that so far their efforts have been in vain.

Perhaps the strategy could have been different. Perhaps the minister could have sought out all stakeholders across the country so that, together, they could present a common front. He said he let the provinces and industries negotiate; but this is perhaps not the time to negotiate, because the negotiation has already taken place.

It took place when we signed the free trade agreement. Will we have to launch into negotiations all over again every time there is a problem? I do not think that the minister wants to negotiate. I think that he wants to see the free trade agreement respected. But, for that, a very firm approach will probably be required.

For workers in our region, as for workers elsewhere in Quebec and Canada, who face losing their jobs because of the arrogance—and perhaps, a bit, the contempt—of the American government, I think that this is a bit contemptuous.

We heard that, at the meetings, the American government said that lumber accounted for barely 2% of trade. But it is 100% of the earnings of forestry workers. It is 100% of their worries about the winter ahead. It is 100% of their income, with respect to all the things they will have to pay for to provide for their families.

For a big government, for a big country which not only thinks it is rich, but is, this 2% is perhaps a way of flexing its muscles. It is perhaps only 2% of trade, but it is 100% of the problem of workers who have to contend with this arrogance.

Recently, some workers asked me to explain free trade to them, to explain who it was for and why we had it. I am for free trade. We said this today, and I think that most people are for it. But must it all be one-sided?

Can a government, through its arrogance or because of the pressures from influential people, interfere at any old time and create a mess elsewhere claiming that free trade applies more or less in some cases, because they claim there are subsidies that should not exist? If free trade is going to work, then it has to work both ways. When we sign a free trade agreement, it has to be respected by both sides.

We cannot forget that this issue has already been heard by the WTO, and we won. The minister once said here in the House that we need not worry, that we would win again. He said that at some point, the U.S. government would be required to pay back hundreds of millions of dollars in duties it had charged us for nothing.

But the workers who lost their jobs, their homes and who, in some cases, had to take their children out of school, because they could no longer afford it—in the case of a child that wanted to go to university—they were not paid for their damages. They had to suffer.

It would seem to me that in this day and age, especially given the events that took place recently, people should start governing with more compassion, keeping in mind those they have made to suffer and whom they could help with the laws and regulations they adopt.

From time to time, I have the opportunity to meet Americans, since half of my family is American. When it comes to incidents such as this one, I find it difficult to congratulate their government. Some have talked about American consumers. But it is not all American consumers who agree with the pressures that have been brought to bear. American consumers are not done any favours when they are forced to pay, as the member mentioned, something in the order of $3,000 or $3,500 more for a house because of duties.

At some point, there needs to be pressure so that when an agreement is reached, when it is also important for the future of workers, the agreement needs to be respected and arrogance and contempt have to be put aside.

I am asking the Canadian government to show as much leadership as possible in this matter, not to negotiate and not to make any tradeoffs. We cannot make tradeoffs on such an agreement by saying “If you honour your agreement, we will give you increased access to our resources”. It simply cannot be done.

Such an agreement must be honoured. I think that the government and the Prime Minister must take a strong stance, with the support of all those who have a say in this matter, so that we have a common position to solve this problem once and for all, and not at half price. Softwood lumber must be included in the free trade agreement.

We must also think about the workers who, inevitably, as I said earlier, will suffer the consequences. It seems to me that with an accumulated surplus of $35, $36 or $37 billion in the employment insurance fund, now is the time to show a little more compassion. That money belongs to forest workers as much as it belongs to anybody else. Now is the time to show a little more compassion by relaxing eligibility requirements somewhat.

When workers lose their jobs with winter fast approaching and, on top of being unemployed, they cannot get EI benefits because of stricter eligibility requirements, even though they paid premiums, that qualifies as hardship.

On behalf of these workers, I am asking the government, as did my colleague who spoke before me, to relax EI eligibility requirements to help them get through the winter.

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, discussions are not enough.

How can the minister tell all the stakeholders that this is not the time to hold such a summit meeting, considering that on November 12 he will act as their spokesman before the U.S. secretary of commerce?

[Softwood Lumber, November 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade needlessly provoked British Columbians affected by the lumber crisis with his false and misguided statement when he called them nervous nellies.

In addition to apologizing earlier, will the parliamentary secretary respond favourably to the request made by the whole industry for a summit meeting to discuss Canada's position on this issue?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, October 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we recently learned that over 380,000 Canadians are not receiving the guaranteed income supplement, even though they are eligible for it.

We are talking about millions of dollars that Human Resources Development Canada is literally stealing from the neediest members of our society.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to eliminate the 11 month retroactivity threshold, so that elderly people will receive the money that is owed to them?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, October 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development studied the problem of senior citizens who are excluded from the Canada pension plan.

According to the figures provided by one expert who appeared before the committee, more than 380,000 Canadians would not receive the guaranteed income supplement, even though they are eligible. We are talking about millions of dollars that Human Resources Development Canada is literally stealing from the neediest members of our society.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development intend to eliminate the 11 month period—

[Food and Drugs Act, October 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, four minutes go by pretty quickly. Perhaps it is my fault, but I wish the Chair had recognized me a little sooner. Regardless, I will try to get my message across in four minutes.

First, the Bloc Quebecois and I agree with the bill on GMO labelling. I think it serves more than getting a debate going, as some have said. Consumers must have a choice. It is time to stop thinking for them.

I have information from the Association féminine d'éducation et d'action sociale du Québec, the AFEAS. I recall working with a number of ministers in Quebec's national assembly. One minister said to me “When the AFEAS puts its mind to a problem or an issue, it gives considerable thought to it and its comments are real”.

I can say that the AFEAS in Quebec, and especially the one from the St. Maurice region, have expressed their concerns to me about the fact that people are almost obliged to eat genetically modified products. I agree with my Liberal colleague, who said earlier that they have yet to be proven dangerous. True enough, but the opposite has not been proven either.

I think this debate is important and it should be broad. We have to find out where we are going with GMOs. I remind those watching that I have spent my life in the field of agriculture. I need not tell them that in the past when people wanted to transform an animal and change it genetically they took their time. I am not saying there is anything wrong with going a little faster today, except that I see mistakes being made in genetic improvements. We did not always end up with the animal we thought we would. This applies to plants and to the food we eat as well.

As for the genetically modified foods we eat today, there is no evidence that we will not come to regret it, even from a human health standpoint. I agree with the 87% of Canadians and the 89% of Quebecers who, in response to a Léger Marketing poll last July, said that they wanted the government to make labelling of foods which have been genetically modified or which contain genetically modified material mandatory, not voluntary.

I think that this is a start. Even if all that results is that a parliamentary committee has to try to take it further and get to the truth about genetically modified foods, I would be in favour of this bill, but in my opinion we must go further still. The bill must be passed and put into force and stiff fines levied for failure to comply with its provisions.

Apparently, provision would be made for identifying content of over 1% of genetically modified material. The 1% is not an objective; it is there in case of error. Consumers have the right to know what they are eating.

In conclusion, I would recall the advertising campaign by a certain company that the consumer was king in its establishment. In Canada and in Quebec, the consumer must continue to be king. He has the right to know what he is eating.