Lost her last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Genetically Altered Foods October 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, in a letter sent recently to the Minister of Health, 200 federal experts on food quality and safety argued that significant gaps existed in research on transgenic food.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the fact that 200 experts are telling the Minister we lack the means to assess the quality of the food we eat every day not enough reason for the government to act as soon as possible to resolve the problem?
Supply October 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the member's question.
Quebec producers' net income from farming has indeed dropped less than that of producers in western Canada. There are several reasons for this, one being that our income support program has been stable for 25 years. Instead of fluctuating with the federal subsidy, Quebec takes what the federal government offers under the tripartite agreement and maintains the stability of our program. This is a big help. Quebec therefore plays a greater role than the other provinces in supporting its farmers. When there is a crisis, we pay our farmers and then we collect from Ottawa, which the other provinces do not do. They do the opposite.
If AIDA is not meeting farmers' needs, I think everyone who spoke this morning has shown why. Just applying is a nightmare requiring farmers to pay an accountant $1,000 to fill out the forms. Right from the word go, there is a problem
Supply October 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I agree completely, because the government still had some leeway, particularly in a time of crisis. If the agricultural sector were in its prime, then would be the time to go all virtuous, and take the hard line adopted in Cairns.
But with the sector now in crisis throughout the country, I think the government could have taken the maximum leeway allowed under the WTO rules.
Supply October 25th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, three things are clear from this motion: the failure of the government's agriculture income disaster assistance program; the need to set up an emergency program immediately to come to the aid of farmers, and the matter of the unfair subsidies paid by foreign countries to their farmers.
Our remarks will focus on these three points. The first is the government's failure with its AIDA program. The government has no compassion.
The federal income security program is a fiasco that ignores the reality faced by the farmers. The present situation in agriculture is proof that the AIDA program does not work and cannot guarantee farmers a decent standard of living. The government cannot simply wash its hands. It is responsible for the situation and is contributing to maintaining this farm income crisis situation.
The main problem, but not the only one, arises from the fact the AIDA program, as designed today, is denying the benefits to a number of producers that it was originally intended to provide. As it is currently designed, AIDA program will not distribute the $900 million in federal government funds set aside for farmers in the coming years. It will not enable the government to keep its promises of support.
AIDA therefore does not meet the needs of farmers. The problems posed by AIDA are many and prove that the federal government really does not know farmers. In its design, AIDA does not take account of the situation farmers are in.
Why are agriculture producers with a negative cost-price ratio being penalized? Why does the program set a ceiling on what a farmer can receive, and the method by which the ceiling is calculated means that the ceiling is lowered when the farmer is experiencing a crisis?
Why has the minister not made a commitment to producers to spend all of the announced $900 million? Why has the minister not made an exception in his assistance program to include the sheep producers who experienced heavy losses in the 1997 scrapie crisis and were ineligible for the $600 per capita compensation? Why has he not made that effort, given that it would have cost only about $1.5 million?
The flaws in the program are the fault of the government and will contribute to keeping farmers in a precarious situation. The rule on negative margins will seriously affect farmers who are in such situations this year.
Because of the sharp drop in commodity prices this past year, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture estimates that there will be 10,000 farms with negative margins. Is the federal government prepared to change its principles and to give consideration to these otherwise viable operations deserving of assistance? Is the government prepared to accept responsibility for the eventual disappearance of farm businesses because of the flaws in AIDA?
This situation notwithstanding, the federal government is doing nothing, thus giving proof of its lack of compassion. Why has it not followed the recommendations of its advisory committee?
In Quebec a revenue stabilization program has been in place for some twenty years. It is a three-way program, with the federal government contributing one-third.
The Quebec government is currently satisfied with the AIDA arrangement, because the province continues to manage its own program and the moneys received were used to lower participants' contributions. The same goes for those who do not have access to the stabilization program, but who benefit from NISA because, again, they are subsidized by the province and the program is managed by Quebec.
The second point is the need to take action to save farmers. Farmers are going through the worst crisis since the thirties. In Quebec, low prices for pork, down 34% from last year, have had a direct impact on farmers' income.
Faced with this situation, the government must continue to help the agricultural sector, particularly since it has the means to do so, while also complying with international agreements. However, if this government finally decides to act, the measures will have to be comprehensive because the agricultural issue concerns the whole country.
According to Statistics Canada, the net farm income went from $4 billion in 1989 down to $2 billion in 1998. In Quebec, the net farm income dropped by $10 million over that same nine year period. Based on estimates, Quebec's total net farm income will be $526 million, that is a 26% drop over the average income for the past five years.
The last point is subsidies made to the agricultural sector in foreign countries. Ottawa is more virtuous than necessary. According to Bob Friesen of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ottawa went too far in that “Canada reduced subsidies beyond what was expected of it. Ottawa could do a lot more for farmers without violating trade agreements”.
For each dollar received by Canadian farmers, their American and European competitors receive $2.5 dollars, and this does not include the $8.6 billion that they just received in assistance.
In 1998, the OECD estimated that total support through agricultural policies amounted to $140 U.S. per capita in Canada, compared to $363 in the United States and $381 in Europe.
As we can see, the argument invoked by the Minister of Agriculture about the constraints imposed by the WTO is not valid. Let us not forget that, under the 1995 GATT agreement, the signatories pledged to reduce their farm subsidies by 15%.
Canada, ever virtuous, went for up to 50% of international guidelines, while the United States and the Europeans went for up to the full 100%. The Bloc Quebecois will always take the side of farmers when they are being oppressed.
Genetically Altered Foods October 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, will the government undertake to move quickly to carry out exhaustive studies of the effects on health of genetically altered foods and to increase the budgets necessary to evaluate these foods?
Genetically Altered Foods October 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, at the closing session of a meeting of the Canadian Health Food Association held in Ottawa last weekend, David Suzuki quite rightly remarked that Canadians are being used as guinea pigs for genetically altered foods.
Is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food waiting for the food inspection system to be discredited before labelling and regulating genetically altered foods, as the Bloc Quebecois requested last June?
Genetically Altered Foods October 20th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, since 1994 the government has had in its possession several surveys carried out on its behalf indicating that 80% to 95% of Canadians support or demand the labelling of genetically altered foods.
Surveys by other organizations have confirmed this.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Why does the minister continue to ignore the clear wishes of the public and refuse to provide it with accurate labelling information on genetically altered foods?
Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act October 19th, 1999
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to this bill. In light of the notice of motion for time allocation, I even consider it a privilege to be allowed to speak at the report stage of Bill C-6, also known as the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
This bill is identical to Bill C-54 brought forward in the last session of Parliament.
I am adamantly opposed to this bill that the industry minister introduced without any consultation with the provinces and which constitutes an unacceptable intrusion in provincial areas of responsibility with respect to civil law.
Incidentally, the provincial and territorial governments met on October 29 and 30 of last year and exposed the extraordinary intrusion in the provincial and territorial jurisdictions created by Bill C-54. The government is somehow attempting to recycle it as Bill C-6.
The motion in amendment before us today would delete a number of sections in this bill, which, if adopted, would mark a backward shift in the matter of protection of personal information in Quebec. This bill is very weak from a legal point of view and, without any harmonization with Quebec's legislation, its enforcement would cause confusion.
As it now stands, the bill much too flawed, from a constitutional, democratic and legal point of view. Far from improving the protection of personal information, it in fact threatens it.
This is why we are asking, and have asked already numerous times, that the federal government withdraw its bill and resume consultation with the provinces in order to table a bill that respects provincial jurisdictions.
I would take advantage of this debate to remind the Minister of Industry and the hon. members on the government side that my colleague from Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques had made a motion during the 35th Parliament calling for the government to make Crown agencies subject to the Privacy Act. This motion was passed unanimously with the support of all of the Liberal members, including the ministers.
Unfortunately, the government did not follow up on it. Yet now we have that same government wanting to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction while incapable of first putting its own house in order.
In light of the federal government's refusal to withdraw its bill, the Bloc Quebecois called for modifications in order to have it not apply in Quebec, where personal information is already adequately protected.
In 1982, the Government of Quebec passed legislation protecting privacy in the public sector, and Quebec is the only state in North America to have legislation protecting personal information, which it has had since 1994.
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms, which dates from 1975, stipulates that everyone is entitled to the protection of his or her privacy. The Quebec Civil Code also addresses the protection of privacy, placing it within a framework that addresses the fundamental principles governing the gathering, retaining and use of information relating to an individual.
The two acts to which I just referred complete the Quebec legislative framework by stating the rights, obligations and rules of public and private organizations in the matter of privacy.
Quebec is obviously a leader regarding the protection of personal information, but this bill could reduce the protection provided to Quebecers. Indeed, contrary to what one might have expected, Bill C-6 does not even extend to the private sector the principles governing the protection of personal information in the federal public sector. The bill does not go nearly that far. Let us look at a few flaws in this legislation.
Under the existing act, federal institutions are required to inform individuals that they collect personal information that concern them, and they must also specify how that information will be used. Under Bill C-6, this is merely a recommendation, not a requirement. The Quebec act is much more specific and strict, since it provides that any agreement relating to such disclosure or use of personal information must be expressed clearly and freely, and must be given in an informed manner and for a specific purpose.
Bill C-6 relies on the voluntary CSA code, whose purpose is not to protect privacy. Also, the notion of personal information is not as well defined in that code, and the definition of consent is vague. Thus, it seems that the bill primarily seeks to promote electronic commerce, at the expense of privacy protection in the private sector. This is not surprising, since the Minister of Industry has always ignored the part of his mandate that concerns consumer protection.
Moreover, the remedies provided in the bill are time-consuming, costly and ineffective because the federal commissioner cannot issue orders, but can only write reports. Canadians will have to go to the federal court to settle disputes, but only after the privacy commissioner will have issued a non-binding opinion, and only after all other recourses will have been exhausted. Finally, unlike the Quebec act, the bill does not provide for criminal penalties when the principles governing the protection of personal information are breached.
Given all the flaws of Bill C-6 and the step backward it represents for Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois has presented several amendments aimed at limiting the damage that may result from its overlapping the existing legislation.
The Bloc Quebecois has presented several amendments which aim to limiting the damage that may cause its superimposition on the existing legislation. One of these amendments aims to explicitly exclude of the application of the bill the provinces that already have a legislation that protects personal information in the private sector.
Another amendment that we tabled will eliminate the power of the governor in council to unilaterally decide to whom the federal law applies.
Another amendment presented by the Bloc Quebecois aims at maintaining the right to privacy insured to Quebecers by the provincial legislation in their relations with federal businesses operating in Quebec.
Finally, an amendment presented by our party aims at avoiding the establishment of new rules concerning the legal definition of signature and rights to a contract for the electronic sector because these questions fall under the provincial jurisdiction in matters of property and civil rights.
The Bloc Quebecois and the Quebec government are far from being the only ones in Quebec to oppose the passing of Bill C-6. They have the support of the Quebec Bar which wrote on February 4th on the then Bill C-54:
The Quebec legislator's approach seems preferable because it specifies even more the rights and duties in a legislative text that is relatively clear and simple to apply. We believe the Quebec plan to protect the personal information in the private sector is better than the one which is provided by Bill C-54.
As for the Chambre des notaires, on April 7, they wrote this:
We submit that overlapping systems will, in our opinion, cause undue misunderstandings and complications both for consumers and for organizations subjected— We believe an amendment is needed in order to exclude from its application professionals, notaries as well as any person or organization otherwise subjected to Quebec legislation.
Finally, on last March 23, the Quebec Interprofessional Council, which regroups all 43 professional corporations in Quebec and some 260,000 members, wrote this:
We believe that Bill C-54 and the system it is proposing are highly inappropriate within the Quebec context, and we ask you to amend it in order to specify that it does not apply to persons or organizations already subjected to Quebec legislation in that regard.
In the wake of the 1995 referendum, the Prime Minister presented his motion on distinct society and said that he would take this notion into account when bills were passed. On June 2, the Minister of International Trade stated in an article published in La Presse that:
Canada decided not to eliminate differences, but to base its future on a system of accommodation between majorities and minorities.
The minister added that Canada did not want a single legal system for everybody.
Therefore I ask the Prime Minister to respect Quebec society and withdraw this bill, which, in its present form, is not acceptable to Quebec.
Genetically Altered Foods October 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister realize that, if the safety of genetically altered foods cannot be guaranteed, this industry will lose the trust of consumers at home and abroad?
Genetically Altered Foods October 19th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the government is in great disarray over genetically altered foods.
The Minister of Industry wants to promote them at all costs, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food wants to export them without knowing their effects, the Minister of Health does not have enough staff to evaluate them, and the Minister of the Environment is blocking the adoption of an international protocol on biosafety.
Will the Prime Minister finally tell them to quit playing around and make the quality of food a priority?