Marcel Gagnon

[Softwood Lumber, October 4th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to my colleague from Churchill who said that she has no confidence in the present system with the Americans to solve the problem. I would tend to agree with her because it is not the first time that we have a situation where we are forced to go to court to see justice done.

This is, however, the system we are dealing with now. Even though we are looking forward to a sustainable solution, as the member said earlier, in the meantime, we have an industry that is being penalized at a time when there is high unemployment and when we know that the immediate future is quite gloomy.

I would have liked to ask the question either to the minister or to my colleague, but I will ask the member for Churchill. Until we solve the problem for good, in my riding of Champlain--as in the Abitibi, which my colleague mentioned, and I know the situation is the same everywhere in Quebec--we are especially penalized since the forest industry is a base industry in our area.

Until the problem is solved, people will be unemployed. Would tit not be possible, for instance, to use the unemployment insurance program or some other program to compensate the industry, to help it survive and to reduce the pressure on the unemployed? It is actually the workers who are paying for a problem that has cropped up between two governments. Does the member think that the government should take temporary measures to help the workers now?

[Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001, September 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, despite a sore throat from a cold, I hope that I will be able to use all the time available to me. If I do not make it to the end of my 10 minutes, it will certainly be because my voice has failed me and not because I have run out of ideas.

We have been debating this bill for some three hours now and every possible argument has been raised, but there is no harm in repeating them. Sometimes, it seems that the members on the opposite side--I am following up on something the member who spoke before me mentioned--also have good ideas. And, in a democratic system where we are all accountable to the public, it would not hurt to accept them in order to improve the situation.

It is a shame to see that we are repeating the same arguments on the basis of our own experience, while we do not see the other side changing. If one day a minister were to say “The opposition was right and I am going to change my approach”, even if the minister were not from my party, I would be the first to thank him publicly, even in my riding, because I think that that is the essence of democracy.

I would like to digress at this point, because this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since the sad events in the United States last week. I feel I must tell my relatives--my mother being American, half my relatives, cousins, live in the United States--and the American people that they have our deepest sympathies in light of these tragic events.

There has been talk about democracy. If there is one value which is fine and noble, one value worth fighting for, it is democracy. We must hang on to our democratic values.

I was spoiled. I was a member of the Quebec National Assembly in the time of René Lévesque. Everyone will agree that René Lévesque was a great democrat. He gave me many lessons in democracy. He sometimes called me to order because, during caucus meetings, what I was proposing was not, in his view, democratic. He was a man whose sense of democracy was ahead of his time.

Since coming here, I realize that democracy is often talked about. But when it comes to putting it into action, there seems to be a desire to forget it. I will give two examples.

Increasingly, the government is trying to govern through foundations. It takes taxpayers' money, gives it to the president of Bell Canada, for example, to administer the millennium scholarship fund. This money belongs to all taxpayers and is being managed by someone with no accountability to the House.

This is happening increasingly. I remember speaking about legislation on the environment. Someone was proposing a foundation for the environment. They do it increasingly. It is, in my opinion, inconsistent with democracy. It is contrary to democracy, because democracy happens here. This is where the decisions have to be made and it is here that the government must be accountable to the people for the money it has managed, that is not ours, but the people's.

There is more proof, the omnibus bill we are debating. It is totally undemocratic to include in legislation things that cannot be opposed.

Everyone has said that we would look pretty stupid opposing the protection of children against sexual abuse, for example. No one wants to oppose it.

We all agree with that part of the bill. I have eight grandchildren. If one of them were ever assaulted and someone were to tell me that I opposed legislation aimed at protecting children, I would hold a tremendous grudge against that person. It makes absolutely no sense to include such important provisions regarding the protection of children with the protection of animals.

Are we pressed for time in this parliament when we left early for our summer recess? Are we pressed for time? Why not split the bill in two? We could then pass more quickly the part dealing with the protection of children.

We are not necessarily against the protection of animals, but there is no consensus on that part of the bill. It has to be improved. It is the part that shocks me. I will not address every aspect of the bill because I think enough has been said already. The government should know that this bill makes no sense. Anything that has to do with the sexual exploitation of children in any way should be dealt with as quickly as possible. It is an urgent matter.

The bill has to be split. Everybody on this side, and probably on the other side as well, agrees with this part of the bill. If this is not a breach of democracy, I do not know what it is. Why include such an important issue with everything else that is in this bill?

There are three bills in here. If we want to do a good job, if we want to be accountable to voters, if we want to say that we have done all that we should have done to make the legislation as fair as possible to all taxpayers, then let us make three bills of the one. I will not say anything more on the part dealing with children.

People are concerned about the section on the protection of animals. I worked with a vet who was an eminent researcher, Dr. Louis Roland. He was one of the first to perform heart transplants in Quebec. He performed transplant operations on hogs, thus helping advance the science, which then allowed for human heart transplants.

When I worked with this doctor—I was responsible for animal health—I would visit farms to perform autopsies. I would like to ask the legislator. When I killed an animal or performed autopsies, I was not always in a proper laboratory, sometimes they were performed on a farm, sometimes even in a backyard. I had to determine what disease the animal had in order to give the others the appropriate medicine. I wonder if, under this new legislation, I would be considered a criminal.

In order to protect, in order for the legislation to achieve its goal, it is important to study it, in order to be able to achieve that goal, and not the opposite.

Many people are raising questions about animal protection, and they are right to do so. These are not necessarily people who wish to make martyrs of animals, but they are right to take the time to ask questions of legislators, in order to improve the legislation.

In closing, I completely support the bill. If the legislators are logical, they will split the bill. This would give us three nice bills to study and improve for all taxpayers.

[International Trade, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the minister really does not know what he is talking about, when he addresses this issue.

On the cheese sticks issue, I am asking him, will he comply with the dairy producers request for a meeting with him in order to discuss the issue and come up, finally, with a logical and consistent position?

[International Trade, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada has written a letter indicating that the statements made by the Minister for International Trade on cheese stick imports are misleading to the House.

The letter is clear. The points made are clear and confirm the Bloc Quebecois position.

Is the Minister for International Trade going to at last understand that he must show some backbone, stop issuing any more import permits, and stop saying just about anything in the House to cover up his errors and incompetence?

[Farm Credit Corporation Act, June 8th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to this bill, which is so important for the development of agriculture, I believe.

This brings back memories, since I worked all my life in agriculture. I know to what extent financing for agriculture was lacking in the past. I also know to what extent this financing played a major role in the development of our farms.

I have always great respect for family farms and I have always worked hard to promote them. When I was involved in Quebec's farm union movement, family farming was defined as an operation providing work for a single person work unit, that is a man and his family, or a woman and her family.

Today, with the development of agricultural technology, we know that the definition of family farming is no longer the same. It is definitely much broader because in the past a farm that was valued at, say, a quarter of a million dollars, was a big farm. Now, some farms are valued at $3 million or $4 million.

So, the Farm Credit Corporation Act has played a major role in the development of agriculture and it is normal to review it and to adjust it as needs evolve. The bill provides that, from now on, the Farm Credit Corporation will provide financing to businesses that are upstream or downstream from primary agriculture or traditional farms.

This could involve financing for the processing of products and for the commodities used in agriculture. This is where I begin to have some concerns.

It may be acceptable to modernize agriculture, but what is a cause for concern is the fact that farms have become so large and so specialized that we have in many instances completely lost the concept of the family farm. Increasingly, agriculture is becoming highly industrialized.

Although I realize that we cannot stop this trend completely, I am not sure that it is necessarily good for the community as a whole. For example, one need only think of the concentrated livestock operations and the pollution problems they will cause, and in fact already have caused, for the water supply. There have been incidents in Ontario and there will be others elsewhere. We have seen how a single farm can contaminate the water supply of a whole town.

When it comes to financing for these major agri-businesses, particularly when one thinks of their effects on the immediate vicinity, I feel we should take a few more precautions. Why I am opposed to this bill? Because, in my opinion, it means opening things up too far without taking any basic precautions.

In the parliamentary committee, the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc Quebecois suggested amendments aimed at trying to set some conditions for the credit the bill proposes to offer to agri-businesses. We are far from the family farm type of operation. We have been told that the Farm Credit Corporation has already lent $20 million to a single company. We wanted the Farm Credit Corporation to be limited to $5 million, with our amendment.

We were told, and I can see the minister opposite saying he agrees with this to some extent, it was what the government wanted. However the problem with this government is that we have to trust its intentions. If the government really intends this, why did it not indicate it in the bill? It could have done so at least for a period of time, the time needed to see whether the intent was really there and whether the government would act.

To my way of thinking, this is an important matter. If we are going to provide financing for megabusinesses, it means that the family business is on the point of disappearing. That would be a real shame. Perhaps a way should be found to revive it at least, for example in specialty farming. We should make an effort to keep this type of business, which ensures a sort of food safety, security for Quebecers and Canadians.

These businesses are therefore on the brink of extinction. With almost unlimited financing, upstream or downstream, clearly the end of family type farms is in sight.

Another point I want to raise is that we were told that, just about everyone in Quebec approved the improvements to the Farm Credit Corporation. We have learned that the UPA, the labour organization representing all of Quebec's farmers, has serious concerns along the lines I have just mentioned.

That means that we were misled, when we were told that the government had checked with the UPA. It would also like guidelines and parameters in the bill. I think that when the UPA speaks, it speaks for Quebec's farmers. It is a highly credible organization and regarded as such.

Quebec's caisses populaires are also concerned. The Canadian Alliance member mentioned that the FCC is competing with big financial corporations. What we must remember is that, when the Farm Credit Corporation makes a loan, it includes a little of our money. There is a bit of us in it, as we say. This comes out of our taxes for the purpose of supporting farming.

However the idea is not to compete with a bank or a caisse populaire, for example, because it would not make any sense to use our tax dollars for that purpose. We would be competing against the private sector, which makes no sense.

When loans of $5, $10, $15 or $20 million are made to a single business, who are we competing with? The private sector. The minister mentioned that the caisses were a bit dubious, but it was more than a bit.

We do not want the Farm Credit Corporation using public funds to compete with the private sector. We are told that there is no risk, that that is not what they want to do. If it is not what they intend to do, if there is no risk, why not say so in the bill so that everyone will feel safer?

It is with regret that I oppose this bill. As I said earlier, the Farm Credit Corporation is a basic tool for farmers and for the development of agriculture, but it should not become a risk. It should not go too far and be too quick to rush into helping out megafarms. Time should be taken to study what is being produced.

With the concentrations of livestock and production, time should be taken to consider the direction being taken. The regulation also needs to be adjusted and more emphasis placed on research into such areas as environmental protection.

For these reasons, I will be voting against the bill at third reading. Since it is never too late to do the right thing, my party is calling on the government to include in the bill the safeguards we are requesting for everyone's sake.

[International Trade, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister for International Trade said yesterday that the 70% increase in imports of cheese sticks meant that there was a need on our market. We are saying this increase in imports is totally unjustified, because Canadian producers are telling us they can meet the demand.

Will the minister understand that this 70% increase in imports is artificial and fabricated, because the minister is not respecting the negotiated quotas.

[Académie Les Estacades, June 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share with you news of the successful performance of a group of 92 young musicians from the academics and music program of the Académie Les Estacades, of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, at a music festival held in New York City on May 5.

First places, and a gold medal, were won by the academy's string orchestra, symphony orchestra and brass and reed bands i and ii . The mark of 97% awarded to the string ensemble was the highest mark ever recorded at this competition. In addition, the school's stage band also came first and was awarded a silver medal.

My particular congratulations to oboist Marjorie Tremblay, who was chosen best soloist, all categories.

Incidentally, the Académie les Estacades was up against some 40 musical ensembles from 13 American colleges.

I am proud to congratulate all these young musicians and their teachers for this excellent—

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis brings back good memories. Indeed, we had this type of debate in the national assembly.

If he thinks that I have not changed my tune, I will tell him that federalism has not changed either. The problems are still the same. I was talking about how the idea of sovereignty was gaining ground in Quebec; in 1970, we were at 20%.

When the member was in the national assembly with me, there was a referendum and we got about 39%. In the last referendum, we almost won. Why? Because federalism has not evolved.

I remember that a great prime minister supposedly once said, “We are putting our head on the block to announce that changes will be made to the federal system if you vote no”. We saw the kind of changes we got. It was a step back for Quebec. Do not worry, there is progress toward Quebec sovereignty.

With regard to the Quebec government, personally I am proud of what it can do, considering the fact that the federal government has constantly reduced the funding Quebec needed for hospitals, municipalities, health care and education.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, the hon. member must know a lot about blackmail, because the federal government she is a member of is certainly very apt in this area. It is blackmailing the people of Quebec with the way it is allocating the money and the conditions it sets.

Where the debt is concerned, nobody said that we should not pay it off. We said that we need to seek some balance. We maintain that the $33 billion the government took from the EI account should not be used to pay off the debt. That money was paid by the workers, by only one segment of society, and not by society at large.

We argue that the money the government is taking from the poor should not all be spent to pay off the debt, because the debt was not incurred by the poorest of the poor. We need some balance.

The tax points we are asking for are only what the government has taken away from the provinces. We only get 14 cents per dollar for health when a few years back we were getting 50 cents per dollar. With less and less money, provinces have to find a way to maintain the health system, while the federal government uses the money to pay off the debt. It is unfair. We want balance. The debt has to be paid off, but let us not forget that there is only one taxpayer.

[Supply, May 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor again, but not for interrupting me. Once one has begun to speak, it would be nice to be able to go on uninterrupted.

I was speaking about provincial jurisdictions. To exercise their responsibilities, the provinces need money, particularly the money which we send to the federal government and which should come back to us. If there were any semblance of political decency here, we would not need a motion such as this one. This reapportionment should be done as a matter of fact. When there are surpluses at the federal level, they should go back to the provinces.

One member opposite said that the federal government is assuming its responsibilities. Let me tell him something. As far as the environment goes, things are not pretty in Quebec, because the federal government just does not assume its responsibilities. Right now, we are trying to have clean up Lac Saint-Pierre, which has been polluted by Canadian army shells. This is under federal jurisdiction. We have been asking for this clean-up for years, but to no avail.

We want to solve the problem along the shores of the St. Lawrence, which are being eroded. Land is being lost to erosion because of transportation. This is under federal jurisdiction, but nothing is being done.

The groundwater in Shannon, in La Baie and in Sept-Îles has been polluted. That is also under federal jurisdiction, but it will have to wait. The federal government likes to order studies, but it does not implement the recommendations. It says the problems have been taken care of because it has decided to distribute bottled water, and we should just forget about groundwater.

One of the federal government's responsibilities is to give back the money to the provinces for education, for health and for municipalities. We must stop having to beg on our knees, having to distribute flags to receive a part of the money that is rightfully ours.

I say to Quebecers that, with respect to the $33 billion in taxes that we pay to the federal government, I hope this problem will be solved as quickly as possible. In the meantime, out of this $33 billion federal surplus, some money must be given back to us.

I think that today's debate, which is aimed at getting together the 10 provincial premiers and the federal Prime Minister to discuss tax points once again, is extremely important.

As for justice and honesty, an hon. member, who is a knowledgeable economist, said earlier that the Bloc Quebecois' discussion about this motion will diminish the value of the federal government for the provinces. If the importance of the federal government is diminished, it is not because of a motion such as this one, it is because of the government's behaviour. If Quebecers find more and more that Quebec has less and less space and that its future is increasingly doomed here in Ottawa, it is not because of the discussion that we are proposing today. Rather, it is because of the way the federal government has worked and continues to work.

Let us not forget that when we began talking about sovereignty for Quebec, about 20% of Quebecers were considering that option. We never lost any ground. At the last referendum, 49.4% of Quebecers voted in favour of sovereignty. Had it not been for the money spent in violation of Quebec's laws to bring people to Montreal to tell us how much they loved us, support for sovereignty would have exceeded 50%.

Quebec never wavered in its desire to stop begging, as we are doing, for the money that is owed to us. Quebec knows that someday, and that day is closer than some might think, we will exceed 50% and we will settle our issues among ourselves, because this is how it should be done in the future.

It is not the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois today that makes me say this. It is a logical conclusion, it is the way to go for a people that will then fulfil its dream.

In the meantime, it would in the best interests of the federal government to discuss today's motion, to call a federal-provincial first ministers' conference and to look at the possibility of reapportioning tax points.

It is not only the nasty PQ and BQ members who are asking that, but also the leader of the opposition in Quebec. All the Quebec governments, regardless of their allegiance, have always asked to recover these tax points so as to not be forced to beg and kowtow to get money for health, education, municipalities and everything that comes under Quebec's jurisdiction.