Marcel Gagnon

[Tobacco Tax Amendments Act, 2001, April 27th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, my question is for the member for Churchill. I found her speech most interesting. I am also a former smoker who had to fight hard and for a long time to kick the habit.

Even if the laws are tougher and if health warnings are required on cigarette packaging to warn about the dangers of smoking and so on, I notice that today the companies seem to easily sell their products in certain places, via television shows in particular. If I am not mistaken, there seems to be more actors smoking on television, particularly amongst the young actors and the stars.

I wonder how the producers of those shows could be made to join the fight and stop playing the companies' game. I would like the member to tell me what she thinks of the idea of trying to get young actors to stop holding a cigarette or smoking on television.

[National Defence, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I hope these measures are not about delivering bottled water.

Yesterday, the Quebec minister of the environment wrote to the Minister of National Defence to ask him what the Canadian government intends to do to avoid a repeat of the situation at Shannon.

Will the minister tell the residents of La Baie what concrete measures he will take to prevent the municipal drinking water wells from being contaminated?

[National Defence, April 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Defence said that the pollution at the Bagotville military base was not in danger of migrating off the DND property.

That statement contradicts the documents of his own department, which indicate that there is a risk of migration toward the municipal drinking water wells.

The minister has had 24 hours to review the issue. Will he confirm his department's reports or will he continue to deny the facts?

[Cheese Import, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the minister understood the question.

This is an issue that is detrimental to the interests of dairy producers in Quebec and in Canada, who already have excess inventory on their hands.

Since Canada is under no obligation in this regard, will the minister undertake not to issue any more such supplementary import permits?

[Cheese Import, April 25th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, under the WTO agreement, Canada may import 20,400 tonnes of cheese annually. But, without any trade agreement requiring it to do so, Canada last year imported 9,000 additional tonnes of cheese.

Will the Minister for International Trade confirm that the government issued such permits and that it is thus continuing to import cheese in excess of WTO quotas?

[Béatrice Morrisseau Gagnon, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Béatrice Morisseau Gagnon will celebrate her 100th birthday on April 18. She is my mother.

The eldest of 17 children, she inherited a huge task when her mother died in childbirth with the last one. After raising all of them to adulthood, she saw some go off to serve in the 1939-45 war. This courageous woman had nine children herself, and now has 105 descendants.

She knew wealth, but she came to know poverty as well when the depression started in 1929. What sustained her was her faith in life and in her Creator, and her love of music. Her piano was always there when she was feeling low. Without a shadow of a doubt, she can say “Mission accomplished”.

On behalf of her 105 descendants, including Laurent, who is but a few hours old as I speak, and whom I welcome into this world, I send my mother all of our love and best wishes for a happy one hundredth birthday.

[Employment Insurance Act, April 4th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before putting a question to my colleague who just finished his speech, I would like to get back to what he said about the time when the government used to pay a third. It was one-third, one-third, one-third; in other words, the employees, the employers and the government each paid an equal share.

Today, with this bill that is going to become law, we realize that the government has stopped paying its share. It has completely changed its tune. Today, instead of paying its share, it is claiming ownership of the surplus. The government is taking 40% of the surplus.

All of us, as individuals—and the trade unions also have mentioned it—know what we are talking about. If any group in society were caught taking money in this way, it would be charged with theft and we would quickly pass special legislation to prevent a reoccurrence. Now the government is passing legislation to steal from the workers.

Since my colleague talked about this a bit, I would like to hear his thoughts on this.

[Foot And Mouth Disease, April 3rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me so that I might add my voice to the interesting and highly worthwhile debate we are having this evening.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member who initiated this debate. It is, as others have said, not an emergency debate in the sense that there is some panic situation. We must not panic but I do think we need to realize what danger we are in. We must be level headed enough to be able to take the necessary precautions to avoid being affected in this epidemic.

The 1952 epidemic has already been referred to. The disease was brought in by a contaminated sausage, probably brought home by a traveller. It must be kept in mind that the 1952 epidemic cost the Canadian government $1 billion.

While not an economist, I do know enough to realize that $1 billion in 1952 would be the equivalent of several billions now.

In my opinion, this would be the equivalent of between $16 billion and $20 billion today. Besides that, herds are different now than they were in 1952. Now we have megafarms. It is not unusual for one swine operation to have 10,000 or more animals.

Without being an alarmist, one can easily imagine what the effects of an epidemic here would be. I am thinking of Quebec in particular, where there are real megafarms. Such an epidemic would cost a fortune and I do not dare do the calculation.

This evening's debate will make it possible to increase our awareness and that of the public. I am thinking particularly of the travelling public. We are at the beginning of the tourist season.

Last year, on returning from Paris, where I had been visiting the forests near the Château de Versailles, I arrived in Mirabel with bits of sand and earth adhering to my boots. I must be honest and say that I found the inspectors a bit overzealous when they asked me to go in the back and disinfect my boots. Today, I realize that these inspectors did their job well.

I think all tourists, those coming into the country after visiting not necessarily just farms but anywhere in the countryside, should take all imaginable precautions not to transmit this virus, which is so easily transmissible.

We are told that this is a disease of animals with cloven hooves, such as animals with horns. We are told that dogs and cats cannot catch this disease but can be carriers. It can be carried in hair. It is therefore extremely easily transmitted and that is why the epidemic is so serious.

I was happy to hear the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food say that he was taking all the necessary precautions, as we speak, to warn passengers in planes, for instance. He mentioned videos and all sorts of measures that have been taken. I hope these will be implemented as quickly as possible.

Someone mentioned that a traveller had visited a farm last week without having taken the necessary precautions. No chances must be taken with this disease.

I think a good insurance policy—and it is a cheap one given the risks involved—is to take the measures the minister mentioned earlier. As my colleague also pointed out earlier, the decision to send back the armed forces ship was the right decision, but it is probably also necessary to increase the number of inspectors.

I remember asking the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food this question. It is true that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is doing a good job but the auditor general told us it was short-staffed. It is perhaps time to increase the number of employees with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency in order to put all the chances on our side.

We know that an epidemic such as this one will not make it here, I am sure, but we must do everything we can to see that it does not. If there were such an outbreak, it would be serious for farm producers but also for consumers. Everyone must feel involved.

Consumers told me that the price of food had begun to go up.

I would rather not think about what would happen if the disease made its way here. We cannot keep destroying whole herds of cattle, sheep or pigs without eventually creating a shortfall.

Every precaution must be taken to prevent the epizooty from reaching America. The public must co-operate. So must tourists. Perhaps people should refrain from visiting farms or travelling to areas in Europe where the disease exists.

I am asking the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to look closely at the possibility of improving security measures, for example by increasing the number of inspectors at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This is something many people, including us, have asked. It is important to ensure that these inspectors receive the best possible training and that the public is as informed as possible, so that everyone feels it is his or her duty to see that our territory remains free of this disease. This is for the benefit of everyone.

Again, I thank the hon. member for raising the issue. I think that, for once, we are unanimous in this House. We are not blaming anyone. We are all saying that we must do something, that everyone must do what is necessary so that the disease does not reach us.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I thank you and I thank my hon. colleague across the way for having raised the issue of relevancy. I thought my remarks were totally relevant, but I do want to come back to the bill.

The matter of the riding of Saint-Maurice I was talking about is a part of my immediate environment. When I speak about the economy in my area, that is part of my environment. When we speak about sustainable environment, I sense that certain people are about to see their reign come to an end.

I must say that I will always be in favour of bills that really favour the environment. I am against this bill, because it concerns not the environment but democracy, which is the basis of the life of this country.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate a great democrat who just took power in Quebec, Bernard Landry. I know that he will work for the sustainable development of Quebec.

[Canada Foundation For Sustainable Development Technology Act, March 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, the subject being debated today involves two great passions I have had since I was very young and since I entered politics specifically.

We are talking about the environment. There is no doubt that the environment means our future. There is no doubt that when we speak of the environment it is hard to oppose the bill, because it would appear to be opposing environmental protection when in my opinion we do not protect it enough.

This bill is a case in point on the subject of democracy. I want to take what my colleague, the member for Churchill, said a little further. She said, “When I arrived in parliament, I had illusions. I thought democracy reigned supreme in parliament. The further I go, the more I realize democracy is under threat”.

My mentor in reflection in the area of democracy or politics is René Lévesque. I had the opportunity to work with this great democrat, now recognized by one and all. Mr. Lévesque said “If there is one political value worth sacrificing one's life for, it is the value of democracy”.

When I see how the government is wearing democracy away and not using democracy—because democracy, as we know, is perhaps one of the sole values that may be worn away and is lost when not used—each time it is threatened, I see René Lévesque and I feel I must react.

This government's ever more closed administration is inexplicable and unforgivable. We can see what it is doing in its closed circuit as well. The only way it can enter an area of Quebec's jurisdiction is by creating foundations.

When it wants to duplicate what is being done in Quebec, it just establishes a foundation and goes ahead. If somebody objects, its answer is that it is just a foundation. However who is responsible for this foundation? To a large extent the Prime Minister is. A foundation obeys the Prime Minister and reports to him. It also gets its mandate from the Prime Minister, but the money still comes from the taxpayers. I take strong exception to this.

With respect to the environment, for example, my colleague has just explained that the Quebec government is putting in a big effort and is doing a great job.

The day before yesterday in committee I asked the agriculture minister a question about what Quebec is trying to do to make agriculture and the environment more compatible, to improve agriculture so that agriculture and the environment can go hand in hand. The agriculture minister congratulated the Quebec government on its efforts concerning the environment.

If this democratic parliament has more money to spend on the environment, it should go through the normal channels and spend it through the Quebec government. It is already there and it is doing a good job on the environment.

I cannot even support the principle underlying this bill because it is not democratic. The purpose of foundations should not be to divert money from provinces and to duplicate provincial programs.

Today is a very sad day for me and for my whole environment. I am the member for Champlain. My riding is located next to the riding of Saint-Maurice. The member for Saint-Maurice, my colleague in parliament, is the Prime Minister. Members know that we have been talking for months now about what occurred in the Prime Minister's riding and in the riding of Champlain.

The Prime Minister argues that nothing wrong happened, but he should turn his words into action and prove that nothing wrong occurred. I am shocked to see that my neighbour, the member for Saint-Maurice, is not even trying to quash the rumours when he could easily shed some light on this issue simply by tabling some documents. This is hurting the riding of Saint-Maurice, the riding of Champlain, the whole region and our democracy.

I think we should act quickly. Members know that people living in various ridings do talk to each other. People come to see me in my riding office and tell me: “Mr. Gagnon, when will this stop? It is starting to really hurt us”. Many of these people come from Shawinigan—