Marcel Gagnon

[Lake Saint-Pierre, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Lake Saint-Pierre is extremely rich in flora and fauna. For several years now, this body of water has been being polluted by the Canadian army, which has fired more than 300,000 shells since the 1950s.

In 1982, a man died after coming across a shell. We also know that children play with them. These shells are a danger to commercial and recreational fishers.

The Minister of National Defence is now looking at the possibility of cleaning up this body of water. Will he tell us what measures he intends to take to ensure that the public has safe access to Lake Saint-Pierre?

[Agriculture, February 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Great Britain also acknowledges that it cannot identify the products it has exported to Canada.

Yesterday, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency indicated that there was no question of banning the use of animal meal in cattle food.

Can the minister tell us with certainty whether animal meal is still being imported into this country?

[Agriculture, February 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the European Commission has banned all exports of cattle, meat or milk from Great Britain until March 1, after 27 cases of foot and mouth disease were discovered in an abattoir in England.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us whether Canada imports these products from Great Britain and, if so, whether it intends to follow the lead of the European Commission?

[Organized Crime, February 16th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec courts just sentenced several bikers for being members of a gang. The crown attorneys involved in that case said that the act is very complex and requires superhuman efforts to achieve its purpose.

Will the Minister of Justice agree with the Quebec Minister of Public Security that a new act on organized crime to make it a criminal offence to belong to a gang is justified?

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we hear some rather surprising things here. This is a democratic parliament, and the minister has just told us that everything is public and we can discuss it here, no problem. We are also told to go and look on the Internet for our answers. Why are we elected and who do we represent, we might ask.

The previous speaker said “There is no point having a debate here, because we form a majority, in any case, and it will pass”. I would like you or someone to enlighten me. They say democracy wears out if it is not used. If we lose it one day, we will be sorry.

We still live in a democratic country, I hope. We call for a debate on a fundamental project that will affect the future, one my grandchildren will live with. We ask to debate it. We are not being arrogant. We are saying “It should be debated”. We get “We do not have the time” on one side. And we get “We form a majority, so it will pass anyway” on another. The minister says “Everything is open, we can debate it”.

How should we proceed in order to get satisfaction, I ask her?

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, unless I am mistaken, the member is saying that in future all our problems will be solved by experts. What are we doing here then?

He said that we should not be asking questions, but that we should accept what the experts come up with. He says “What would 301 members of parliament at the negotiating table accomplish?” We are not asking for every one of us to take part in the negotiations.

I represent a riding, and Quebecers who want to know what is going on. The member says that we want to talk about health, education, labour. But what does he think is on the table when free trade agreements are negotiated? This will affect the future of all Quebecers and all Canadians. We have the right to ask questions. We have the right to know what we are getting ourselves into.

The member said that almost no one but those who voted for the Liberals deserve to run this beautiful country, Canada—or something like that, at the beginning of his speech—and that the opposition does not carry much weight.

What does the member think we are doing here in this House, if not representing a segment of the population that has questions to ask? It is not the people on your side who will have to field questions, but the members on our side.

[Supply, February 15th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, considering the importance of the issue, could we ask ourselves certain questions without being labelled anti-free trade?

Personally, I am for free trade but, as a citizen and consumer, I have the right to ask questions and to get answers. In what kind of system are we living? Is it a democracy or not? Why is it that every time we stand up to ask questions, the people across the way say that we are against whatever the subject of the debate is, when all we want is some clarification? We want to know what is going on. These are questions that our fellow citizens ask us in our riding.

Since my distinguished colleague has some experience in the House of Commons, I would ask her what we can do to get the answers to the questions and concerns our constituents raise? It is healthy to have concerns. It is not that these people are against free trade, but they want to know what we are getting into. With her experience, could my colleague tell me how we could get the answers we need?

[Agriculture, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I may be a total newcomer to this House but I have a feeling of déjà vu about tonight's debate. I must explain that I have that feeling because I am a farmer's son and very much involved in the agricultural field at home in Quebec.

My hon. colleague said that perhaps Quebecers were lucky enough to have a kind of safety net for agricultural producers. I know what she was referring to, for I was in the grassroots of the UPA during the 70s when we were working to get that safety net.

I have sympathy for the farmers expressing their concerns for a crumbling industry, for I too have known the farmer's life. I find it a pity that the government has not been able, as my colleague has said, to foresee such situations.

Agriculture is the basis of our economy. Agriculture does not exist just for the farmer.

I listened to what the Secretary of State for Rural Development has had to say. I found it rather depressing and it took me back some 25 years to hear him talk about protecting the rural lifestyle, the necessity of getting down to basics, that rural Canada counts on its agriculture.

I must state that agriculture does not exist for the farmer, it exists because of the consumer. Its purpose is not preservation of a lifestyle. We are not talking folklore here. There is an element of that, of course. I think most people like to go out into the country to visit farmers. Their lifestyle appeals to us. However, agriculture exists first and foremost because consumers need food safety, they need healthy food produced close to where they live.

My colleague explained how agriculture was the cornerstone of the economy. This is what we must understand. When a farmer is forced to come to protest with a combine in front of parliament, it means that he is in debt up to his eyeballs. It means that he sees a new season ahead but he does not know if he will be able to start it.

It means there was a lack of vision, not on his part, but on the part of the government. When people come here en masse to protest to get help, to ask all political parties to come to their help, to ask the government to take action, there is a problem. They are there. They are there and they need help. They need support and we must be sensitive to their plight, before the problems start to surface. They want some sympathy for the vulnerability of their profession.

When a farmer gets up in the morning, he often wonders what will happen next. A farmer is vulnerable to anything, including the weather and the environment. He is vulnerable to market prices because his government did not protect him adequately. He is vulnerable because production was not properly planned. A farmer is always the first one and the last one to pay.

I thank those who proposed this debate in the House. It reminds me of a debate which, as I said earlier, took place in Quebec in the seventies and eighties, and during which I personally worked very hard to get the safety nets that we needed. I imagine that a responsible government, which boasts that it has the best and one of the richest countries in the world, will not stand by while agriculture, a pillar of its economy, collapses.

Farmers need support and agricultural programs on a daily basis. They need us to view their work as something other than a quaint way of life that must be preserved. They need to feel that consumers need their services. In order for them to be able to deliver those services, they have to be able to make a living at what they do. This means we must be able to anticipate the tough times so that they are not left to face their problems alone the way they are now.

Clearly I am calling on the government to come to the assistance of farmers, particularly those in the west, who are now in a difficult situation. We are not perhaps experiencing the same problems in Quebec right now.

However, agriculture in Quebec still requires assistance from the federal government. In this area, as in others, the money in the federal government's coffers represents our tax dollars. The government has to stop thinking that when it helps us, it is doing us a big favour. That is not the case. This money comes from the taxes paid by Quebecers and Canadians. We will always be here to ensure that Quebec gets its share of what it has to spend on agriculture.

That is only fair: when one pays taxes, one should be able to expect, particularly when things are not going well, that the government will be forthcoming with our, not its money. It should direct taxpayers' money where it is needed so that consumers and producers feel more secure and producers are less vulnerable when times are tough and a source of constant worry.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

I agree that it is scandalous. They were saying earlier “Wait, we can change this law in committee”. I am not dreaming in technicolour; I know what was promised and what was put before the House, but we will see whether, in committee, we can change it.

I personally think it will make no sense if this law is not changed to give the workers their due, especially since this parliament, the parliament of Canadians and Quebecers, is the parliament of what the Prime Minister boasts about as one of the fairest countries, particularly in social terms, for society's poorest.

I think it vital we return to order and find a way to give the money back to those who paid it, for the reasons they paid it. It is not up to the government to say “You have paid this money for insurance, but we think you do not need the insurance. So we will take it to lower taxes for the rich”.

If you had the misfortune of seeing your house burn down, you would contact your insurer and say “Unfortunately, my house burned down”. Then you would learn from your insurer that you are not covered for the first fire, but that you will be paid if your house burns down a second time. This is more or less what the government is saying to workers. A worker who, following a sudden layoff, expects to collect employment insurance benefits to make it through this difficult period is told “No, you are not covered right now; you did not work enough hours”.

Now, instead of having to work 300 hours to collect employment insurance benefits, which were the original terms under the insurance plan, a person must have worked 910 hours. Again, this act is unfair. It needs improving. The Bloc Quebecois is prepared to co-operate if the government is willing to split this bill in two.

We agree with certain parts of the bill, but other parts absolutely must be changed. I say to workers from my region and from Quebec that we will continue to work hard to improve this act, so that they can get what they are entitled to.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during the recent election campaign, there was so much talk of amending the Employment Insurance Act that I thought that a bill would be introduced as early as possible in this parliament and that there would also be an early opportunity for the House to debate it.

There is no denying that the government members spoke about it everywhere. The Liberals tried to win votes with this bill and I think that they succeeded in doing so with their promise to amend the legislation to make it fairer and more acceptable to workers.

The Prime Minister himself admitted that some mistakes had been made in the Employment Insurance Act and he promised to do something about them. My colleagues mentioned that other ministers had visited the various regions in Quebec and said the same thing.

Does this mean that there really are two different tunes: the one during the election campaign cleverly designed to bring in votes, and the other when the rubber hits the road? In this parliament, where decisions are made that affect the lives of all Canadians and Quebecers, the Liberals have decided that what they said during the election campaign no longer holds.

I think that many voters in my riding did not believe the promises they were hearing. But they hoped. I am thinking of the La Tuque area in Haute-Mauricie. It is a tourist region. It depends on forestry. Employment there is naturally fairly seasonal. These people deserve help. That is not the proper word, because they are helping themselves. My colleague for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel has just told us that employment insurance is not a social measure, but insurance we pay as workers, provided we are in insurable jobs.

The purpose of paying into insurance is to have protection when needed. We are always at our most vulnerable when we need the protection of insurance. It is always when we are in difficulty.

In my riding, there are workers whose plant has closed down for a time, but they are hoping to get their jobs back. A paper plant has closed temporarily. When are they going to get their jobs back? There is talk of a two week penalty period, of punishing people who are absolutely not at fault. This insurance is a worker's right. It is not the property of the government.

I do not want to get called to order like one of my colleagues for using words that are apparently not to be used in the House. You have already pointed that out to one of my colleagues. I will not say that it is robbery, although I will think so. However, I shall not say so.

The government has a fund containing some $32 billion to $38 billion paid into it by workers and employers. I have been a worker and an employer. When, as an employer, I hire someone, the benefits I give in terms of employment insurance, the part the employer pays, is deducted from his pay. It comes out of his hourly wage. So, in fact, employment insurance is paid for 100% by the workers.

When the government decides to take that, to go off with it, to put it in a common fund, in the pot, and at the same time decides to cut the taxes of society's richest, I see it as taking money from the person who needs it, who paid insurance, and giving it to the other, who does not need it or needs it less. In my opinion, if that is not theft, it looks like it.

I promised the workers in my riding during the election and more recently to talk about it in parliament. It cannot be done this way. Even more shameful, in my opinion, is limiting the time to debate it, but I understand them. I understand their wanting not to talk too long about such an unfair law, which makes off with money people have legally paid, to use it for other things. I understand their wanting to get this law through quickly.