Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

[The Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is always nice to be congratulated for a speech. I sincerely thank the hon. member.

As a matter of fact, there are two simple ways to deal with the problem of impaired driving. The two solutions depend on the federal government. I am under the impression that my colleague opposite is listening.

The first way to deal with the issue is, of course, to use the media to get the message across. The Canadian government has huge advertising budgets. I must recognize that occasionally it does excellent work with ads for the good of the nation. It is not always the case, but when the government is concerned for the good of the nation it is capable of offering constructive and interesting ads that will make viewers think.

As members will appreciate, the most efficient media is, of course, television during prime time. But advertising during this time slot gets very expensive. What is needed is investment, money invested directly in information on TV.

The other solution is also money, but money directed to provinces. The federal government, and this is no longer even an open secret, is amassing surplus after surplus. I do not know how it does it, but the government is keeping its head above the water.

Is it not time, therefore, to restore funding for provincial transfer payments for education and health care—in my speech I referred to alcoholism as a disease—to their 1994 levels so that the provinces, which are well aware of the problem, can have the money they need to invest in effective prevention programs adapted to their clientele? The results could be worthwhile.

Again, I have no doubt that my colleague across will take my suggestion to cabinet, and I thank him in advance.

[The Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today, Bill C-18, is aimed, once again, at amending the criminal code.

A great many changes are made to the criminal code here in this House, particularly where impaired driving causing death is concerned. This is, of course, a serious offence. Hon. members will understand that, even if we are strongly opposed to this bill, our position is not intended to convey the idea that it is a minor event if a person kills another because he or she had too much to drink before driving.

Toward the end of 1999, Pierre Gravel, a respected editorial writer for La Presse— there is such a thing as a respected editorial writer—wrote as follows:

The Bloc Quebecois is often faulted for carrying out systematic obstruction in Ottawa, solely for the purpose of demonstrating that the federal system is not workable.

I am tempted to add “solely for the purpose of demonstrating that the federal system refuses to be improved by taking the views of the opposition into consideration”.

Mr. Gravel continues:

This is not, however, an accusation that can be made of its interaction in the debate on the sanctions to be imposed on impaired drivers.

This is probably the most important point in his editorial:

It is, on the contrary, in this connection that its hardline attitude has contributed greatly to moderating the excessive zeal of the zero tolerance zealots.

Those zero tolerance zealots are to my right here in this House, although their intolerance has, regrettably, crossed the floor of this chamber.

Continuing to quote from Mr. Gravel:

And, at the same time, to take over from any discussion of this matter from a reasonable point of view, in which the sanctions connected to these offences will not be disproportionate to crimes as serious—

These crimes could even be worse, in some instances.

—for which the offenders get much lighter penalties.

Bill C-18 is back in the House today and it is rather disturbing to see the impressive silence from the government side, from the right wing parties. Could it be that they have nothing left to say to refute our arguments? That would already be a sign of wisdom, but the greatest wisdom would be to withdraw this bill.

Could it be that they are more concerned about an election? One of the parties in this House is holding its convention as of today and I can understand why its members are not participating in the debate.

The alliance also has a convention of course, but it is held around Quebec's national holiday, so there is still time for them. The party opposite held its convention just a few weeks ago. So, why are they silent?

I believe they are keeping quiet because they decided that this bill would be passed with a very large majority, since it is clear that the Bloc Quebecois will be the only party to oppose it.

In the same article, which was written about a year ago, on June 3, Pierre Gravel added this:

But when the government, as is currently the case, faces an ultraconservative and populist opposition such as the Reform Party—

At that time, they were still called the Reform Party.

—which always advocates the harshest possible sentences to ensure law and order, there is inevitably a risk of having very radical solutions that do not always take into account the whole reality.

Mr. Speaker, you are well aware that radicalism and respect rarely go together. There are some very recent examples in this House.

Pierre Gravel went on to say:

The greatest merit of these measures is to calm a population obsessed by a desire for vengeance that is constantly exacerbated by a large number of demagogues. When, in addition to that, the party in office—

That was true one year ago. Members can imagine now.

When, moreover, the party in power feels an urgent need to increase its popularity with a group of people who support the intractable attitude of the opposition, we end up with an unacceptable bill such as the one that earned the absolute and, in this case, totally justified opposition of the Bloc Quebecois.

A year later, Mr. Gravel will be able to take his editorial and adapt it to today's reality and see, increasingly, that this government is making a name for itself with its opportunism and the effect of this will be dealing this way with people, who are honest, but who may have made an error in judgement. Who has not?

Who can rise and say “I have never and will never make an error in judgment”. This is the way they will treat an honest citizen who has made an error in judgment, who has done something wrong, namely starting his car and driving off risking or possibly causing the death of someone.

I would like to ask a question. Could anyone of us making this error in judgment live serenely after making the mistake of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing injury or even death? I know no one here or where I come from or among the majority of the population who would say “Oh, that is nothing”.

That is not true. Unlike habitual criminals who are part of a culture where crime is part of their daily life, and is in the end of no importance, most people facing a criminal charge for driving under the influence of alcohol and causing the death are people who repent. Obviously, repenting is the first step toward wisdom.

My colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques talked of the importance of prevention. I was young once. I remember that, at the tender age when I was fascinated by guys who drove cars, I went for a ride on July 14; I met my husband on that same day. I went for a ride with young people who were going to celebrate Bastille Day. In the early 1960s, Quebec was awakening and wine flowed freely as we celebrated France's national day.

When it was time to go home, I looked at the driver and I said: “My God, I will never get into this car”. I thought that my life was still worth something. I accepted something that could have been worse; I agreed to leave with a nice young man whom I had met on the dance floor and who appeared to be serious. I had noticed that he had not drunk too much, maybe a glass and a half of wine. In fact, he brought me back home safely and, three years later, I agreed to become his partner for life.

Prevention makes people more aware of the risks associated with some behaviours. In Quebec, prevention is valued and is now part of our life.

There is another bill before this House that has been under discussion for a long time and that concerns young offenders. I do not need to, once again, go over the statistics from Quebec, which are self-explanatory. They show that crimes by young offenders is dropping and that prevention and rehabilitation are effective.

For this reason, instead of deciding to send young delinquents to prison or to send reckless drivers guilty of injuring or killing someone to prison for life, we know that prevention works. This method helps make them more responsible people.

In fact, this debate should have been an opportunity to have an adult and mature discussion between people from all over Canada and Quebec on the subject of what it means to be responsible citizens.

This is what we should be reflecting on. The House of Commons is an extraordinary forum to reflect on the notion of responsibility. Many members of the House are parents and have done their best to raise their children. I believe not too many parents would say “My kids are model and responsible citizens who are successful and fulfil all the duties that are entrusted to them because I beat them regularly and locked them up in their room”.

This is precisely what the government wants to do with Bill C-18. We believe that prevention is the way to go and that we must invest some money in schools. We know that young people start smoking around the age of 8 or 9 and that some start drinking at a fairly young age.

Hence the need for education programs, with people who are knowledgeable and able to transmit values. We need education programs focussing on parents in order for them to promote a whole series of acceptable behaviours.

We know that there is nothing wrong with having a drink with friends to mark a happy event or just because it is Friday and the weather is nice. On the contrary, I believe it is a sign of socialization, and God knows that we need this. However, the situation turns sour when one takes one, two or three drinks, then up to eight drinks, finally getting to the bottom of the bottle. I am obviously referring to wine. If it is scotch, the situation is different, because it does not take as much.

There is another real problem I would like to address. I do not know if my colleagues have raised it. Among those who drive under the influence and cause serious accidents, we find the honest citizen implicated in an incident. He did not want it to happen and there was no premeditation on his part.

There is another group of citizens comprised of all the individuals plagued by a very serious illness which is called alcoholism. At one time or another, every one of us has known a fine person who, sadly, had a serious alcohol dependency.

It is hard enough to get rid of a cold or the flu, but getting rid of an alcohol problem is nothing like getting rid of the flu. It is an illness of the soul, which caused awful physical dependence. We must help those affected, because they need both psychological and medical support. They must be helped to make their decision because this illness can be cured when there is no other choice.

Bill C-18 says “Here is the solution, we open the door, you go in, we close the door and that is that. You will come out feet first”. That is how we would treat honest citizens who were unlucky, or sick.

Once again, and I imagine that the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, who is a reasonable man, a sensible man, will back my request that the government withdraw Bill C-18.

It will do nothing to improve the situation on highways. It will simply hurt some citizens more without lessening the pain of families who lose a loved one. That is clear. What is the purpose then?

Again, as I have said, the purpose is to seek the votes of those who, for one reason or another, tend to think that repression works and that this is the way to go.

When a state has reached the stage of using repression as a standard administrative tool, it is not far removed from having something in common with a dictatorship. I trust that Canada is very far from being a dictatorship. I certainly hope so.

I would like to make it perfectly clear to the members here in the House and those watching us at home that behaviour is never modified by repression. Changes are brought about through education, prevention, and a serious investment by professionals who are capable of helping people in difficulty.

I am going to read something that is absolutely fascinating. I have referred to some journalists, but everyone knows that not all journalists are serious all the time. Who reads what they write? Fortunately, we are allowed to quote them in the House. I am going to read something far more serious than that, an excerpt from the recent Gladue decision.

This is the context, and when I get to the part I wish to emphasize, I will point this out to hon. members.

A number of inquiries and commissions have been held in this country—

This country being Canada.

—to examine, among other things, the effectiveness of the use of incarceration in sentencing. There has been at least one commission or inquiry into the use of imprisonment in each decade of this century since 1914.

Things have changed considerably since 1914. The means of communication have nothing to do with it. It is not that at all. Here is the part I wanted to emphasize:

An examination of the recommendations of these reports reveals one constant theme: imprisonment should be avoided [—]

That was true in 1914.

—imprisonment should be avoided if possible and should be reserved for the most serious offences, particularly those involving violence. They all recommend restraint in the use of incarceration—

This is not a quality of the government opposite.

—and recognize that incarceration has failed to reduce the crime rate and should be used with caution and moderation.

This too seems to have escaped the members opposite.

Imprisonment has failed to satisfy a basic function of the Canadian judicial system which was described in the Report of the Canadian Committee on Corrections entitled: “Toward Unity: Criminal Justice and Corrections” (1969) as “to protect society from crime in a manner commanding public support while avoiding needless injury to the offender”.

If things have come to the point where a citizen who happens to commit an error of judgment and kills someone might be treated, as he will be if this bill is passed, like the hired killer who so neatly put away Dédé Desjardins in Laval ten or so days ago, I think that that is not treating society with respect.

[Human Resources Development, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to understand why we got the invoices with some files and why with Placeteco it was impossible.

It is hard to understand the stubbornness of the minister, who, day after day—50 times, she says—has served up the same response on the subject of the Placeteco invoices. It has to be either one or the other: there are no invoices or they are being prepared.

When does the minister intend to table these invoices?

[Human Resources Development, May 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for the information of the minister, we did indeed reapply to access to information, and there were no invoices.

For weeks, we have been asking to have the invoices tabled, which would prove beyond a doubt that the money did go to job creation at Placeteco, since we have a document in hand that proves beyond any doubt that the money very definitely went to something else.

When will the minister be tabling the invoices?

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, after having praised the quality of Canadian food products, which nobody denies, I am pleased to tell my hon. colleague, in response to his brilliant speech, that the money he mentions was handed over to the farmers.

I do not see how making labeling mandatory—because the issue, here, is voluntary labeling, and everybody knows what happens with voluntary measures—would undermine the quality and the reputation of food products coming from Canada.

One must have a very narrow vision to think that our reputation would be tarnished if we adapted to a new reality. My hon. colleague should be proud that there are in this parliament sovereignist members who want to have a debate on something that is fundamental for everybody, whether one is a sovereignist or a federalist. I would not want my hon. colleague, who is so brilliant, to lose some of his smarts after eating too much genetically modified food.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this opposition motion of the Bloc Quebecois on the labelling of genetically modified foods, which reads:

That this House urge the government to demonstrate openness with regard to genetically modified organisms, starting by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods or foods containing genetically modified ingredients, in order to enable Canadians to make informed choices about the foods they eat.

This debate deals essentially with the rights of citizens to get correct information so that they can make an informed choice.

This motion is of great importance considering the impact of all the new biotechnologies and the intensity of the debate surrounding the issue of genetically modified foods. Since the famous Aldous Huxley novel A Brave New World was published, the reality of new technologies has gone way beyond fiction.

One of the first stars of these new technologies was named Dolly. It was the first cloned animal. Something that used to be found only in science fiction novels became reality and it rekindled the debate on the relationship between ethics and science.

The same goes for foods containing genetically modified organisms. There is nothing wrong with the idea of modifying organisms such as plants to give them characteristics that they would not naturally have, to make them more resistant to diseases, for example, or more resistant to harsher climates—we know the climate in Quebec and Canada is often difficult for plants. Doing so to increase the productivity of certain varieties can also be considered progress. After all, we must feed the planet, which is faced with such problems as desertification and the decreased productivity of certain soils.

It could also be very beneficial to consumers like you and me. But it still raises several issues. For example, at this time, no one can predict accurately the long term effects of these modifications on the genetic heritage of our planet. Some people do not hesitate to call genetically modified foods frankenfoods. This is not very reassuring.

To illustrate this, I would like to mention a case that drew the attention of a lot of people recently. A Newfoundland researcher succeeded in modifying the growth process of a type of salmon, a species we know is on the verge of extinction. He managed to do that through genetic manipulation.

As seen on TV, the result was striking, the modified salmon was two or three times larger than a natural salmon of the same age. Of course, fishermen might be interested in catching such an extraordinary specimen, but what about when the salmon ends up on one's plate?

It is not inappropriate to call for a public debate, a broad discussion, since genetically modified foods, salmon being only one of them, end up daily on our plates without our really knowing it.

According to existing data, 50% to 60% of the food for sale in Canada or Quebec's food markets, food that we eat contentedly three times a day, sometimes even four, contain genetically modified organisms.

There are beautiful, unblemished tomatoes, perfectly symmetrical potatoes, corn, canola and soybean. This is definitely not a rhetorical debate, but one that concerns all Canadians, because it involves our food supply, our health and the health of our environment.

For that reason, the government must make it mandatory to label GMOs. The right to information exists; Canadians have the right to make choices, informed choices, about the foods they eat. Mandatory labelling does not mean a ban on these products. The object is to let the consumers know what is in the products they are buying.

Current regulations already require that labels on food products list all the ingredients. Have you ever looked at these labels, Mr. Speaker? Of course not, but I am sure you eat nothing but butter. I would suggest though that you take a minute to look at the long list of ingredients in ordinary margarine.

It would be most advisable to clearly identify GMOs, as we already identify other ingredients. Moreover, the fact that the GMO labelling is not mandatory will only make a good number of people suspicious, that is those who are aware of the potential risks this technology poses.

Mandatory labelling is not only for the benefit of consumers, but also for the benefit of producers. It could help to maintain the level of food and agricultural exports from Quebec and Canada. Many countries have already adopted measures to make labelling mandatory.

On April 12, the European Parliament amended its 1992 regulations, making GMO labelling mandatory. The products that contain more than 1% of GMOs will now have to be labelled in order to be offered throughout the European Union territory. We are talking about millions of people.

We can ask ourselves if the products made in Quebec and in Canada will still be allowed onto the European market. Could it be that by refusing to make the labelling mandatory, we could be putting our food and agriculture industry at risk?

Amongst the countries who have already adopted these kinds of measure are Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. These countries are all in the Far East.

At the beginning of my speech, I talked about the ethical aspect of the issue we are debating today. Scientific research has to be governed by an code of ethics to guarantee that these studies are carried out in the best interests of the population and not in the sole and sacrosanct interests of the biotechnological companies.

First of all, there is the whole issue of intellectual property as it relates to living organisms. When a company succeeds, after much research and millions of dollars of investment, in isolating a given gene, at the present time it can then patent that gene. We must ask ourselves whether it is desirable for the genetic heritage of a planet to be privatized, in a way, solely and uniquely to benefit the biggest and most successful of businesses because they have more money to invest.

As well, if these few companies control a sizeable proportion of genetic engineering, one may well wonder also whether other researchers will be able to continue to move ahead in the same field.

Only a few companies control the world market in seeds, insecticides, herbicides and pesticides. I do not need to name names. Everyone knows who they are. This has significant consequences on supply prices and security, and on farmers' lifestyles.

As an illustration of this, there are two types of seed that have been modified to be herbicide resistant, both made by the same company. Farmers are therefore in a way slaves to a certain company. This does not strike us as being in the interests of the general public.

Another example is the so-called terminator technology, which produces plants whose seeds are sterile. This is getting pretty close to Aldous Huxley. Farmers, particularly those in the developing countries, are opposed to this technology, which prevents them from producing seed to sow for their next crop, thus creating dependency on the seed companies, which is both increasing and unavoidable. Strong objections have kept this technology from being put into application.

It is vital, therefore, for the government to act as a prudent administrator by making it mandatory to label genetically modified foods and by establishing measures for detailed testing in order to assess the long term impact of GMOs on human health and on the environment, as well as passing, after consultation, legislation on the safe and ethically responsible use of genetically modified organisms and on the creation of a structure for informing and educating the public.

[Petitions, April 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to table a petition bearing 128 signatures. The petitioners call upon parliament to move quickly to pass legislation requiring the labelling of all foods that are genetically modified, in whole or in part.

[Genetically Modified Organisms, April 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for some months now the Bloc Quebecois has been calling for the mandatory labelling of GMOs, and the government has refused to do so.

Today we have learned that the European Economic Community will be requiring all products with over 1% GMO content to be labelled in future.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the government, which has shown nothing but inertia in this matter, tell us what the repercussions of the European decision will be on agro-food exports from Quebec and from Canada?

[Health, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in order to justify its unacceptable intrusions into the health sector, the government is adding together equalization payments, the Canada social transfer, and tax points.

Yet, in February 1996, the National Forum on Health wrote, and I quote: “—the Forum considers the inclusion of tax points in the federal contribution to be confusing and unhelpful”.

When will the minister restore the Canada social transfer to the 1994-95 level, and quit trying to confuse the issue?

[Health, April 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, instead of restoring transfer payments to 1994-95 levels, the Minister of Health has decided to meddle even further in Canada's health care systems.

Yet, according to the Canadian Health Coalition, the government is footing only 13.6% of Canada's $61 billion health care bill.

How can the minister justify his approach to health care funding, with its single-minded focus on calling all the shots?