Hélène Alarie

[Leader Of The Bloc Quebecois, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Bloc Quebecois leader was in British Columbia and Alberta to discuss a number of ideas to allow Canada and Quebec to move toward a promising future for Canadians and Quebecers.

Our leader noticed that an increasing number of Canadians are seriously considering the proposal of the sovereignist movement, that is a new partnership with a sovereign Quebec.

This dialogue with western Canadians showed us that, beyond the hollow rhetoric, do-nothing attitude and piecemeal approach of the Liberal government, ways can be found to establish sound political relations, based on a new partnership that will serve the interests of both Canada and Quebec.

[Labelling Regulations, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that by not ensuring that genetically modified foods are properly labelled, he is failing to fulfill his duty to inform consumers and could undermine public confidence in the food inspection process?

[Labelling Regulations, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, progress in biotechnology allows for the growing production of genetically modified foods that find their way on the market and on our plates. Yesterday, Deputy Minister David Dodge recognized that the Department of Health was completely overwhelmed as regards the control of these foods.

My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Does the minister not think that one solution could be to regulate the labelling of these genetically engineered foods, so that consumers can make an informed decision about what they eat?

[Agrologists, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted today to salute my classmates and their spouses, who have come to Parliament Hill to celebrate 36 years of life in agronomy.

When we graduated in 1963 from Laval, our motto was to feed the world and save the planet. To this end, each of us worked in very different sectors. Some returned to the land, others chose basic or applied research, government affairs, teaching, international co-operation, industry, farm credit, agricultural extension, tobacco, food inspection, the environment, banking, the Canadian milk board and administrative tribunals—all spheres related to agriculture.

We were considered a remarkable group. Perhaps this view of us was well founded, because many of us have held influential positions in all areas of the agri-food sector. Some have already left us, and we miss them today.

To each of my classmates, I say welcome to the House and what a pleasure it is to have you here.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today because I wish to speak to Bill C-78, an act to establish the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, and other related acts.

We are opposed to the bill now being debated for several reasons. First, because it is another indication of how this government manages the public purse, under the Minister of Finance, by helping itself here and there to any surplus, however small, and using the money to fund all sorts of projects, often in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

We are opposed to this way of doing things. We saw what happened with the surplus in the EI fund. The government helped itself to it. Insurance means just that. There must always be money left in the fund for hard times.

The Employment Insurance Act was amended so heavily that it became extremely difficult for people to qualify for benefits. They are subject to all sorts of investigations, which are fine in the normal course of things, but which often deprive those looking for work of the system they used to be able to rely on.

The amendments to the Employment Insurance Act have gone too far. Surpluses were used to pay down the deficit and to fund other programs as quickly as possible with no regard for the foundation of the EI fund system.

With what happened not too long ago, one has every right to be concerned and to say “It is no better to keep taking money from the surpluses in other funds”.

The surplus in the public service plan is about $15 billion. It is $2.4 billion in the RCMP plan, and $13 billion in the Canadian forces' plan. This adds up to $30 billion, which are going to be used to pay for programs or reduce deficits here and there. The thousands—I repeat thousands—of workers who paid into the plan are getting shafted.

Currently there are around 275,000 Canadians and Quebeckers who have been contributing to the plan. There are 160,000 retirees and 52,000 surviving spouses.

Instead of helping workers, using the interests generated by these surpluses to improve their working conditions and their wages, the government decided to do something else, saying “From now on these surpluses will be part of a fund managed by the government. The government can dip into it as it sees fit, without any regard for the very reason the pension funds were established in the first place”.

When we speak about public service employees, we speak mostly about women since they are the majority in the public sector. We are talking about employees who earn about $30,000 a year and get an average pension of $9,000 a year. These are not people earning above the average, far from it. They are people who might be in need of that $30 billion in the surplus to improve their living conditions, instead of seeing the money taken away from them.

In recent years these same employees have had all sorts of things done to them. They may seem to be a pretty tough lot, but beware. The women public servants may be patient for a time, but when that patience runs out, watch out, for they have had enough of being snubbed, after all the pay equity business.

There are people in my riding who have been waiting for years to see this problematic issue of pay equity solved. When there has been no solution to a problem for more than 10 years, this suggest the problem lies with the ones who are supposed to be finding the solution.

They were told that there were court decisions pending and we would have to wait and see what the outcome would be. There was even a decision pending in the private sector. So the public sector could not make a move because that could have a major impact on the private sector. All of these judgements have been brought down now, and the issue could have been solved.

It is true that several billion dollars are at stake, but that is because nothing has moved for years. Had the problem been settled at the right time, one year at a time, the figures would be far less and people would not be left with the same impression. There would not be these huge sums to be given back to public servants, because they would have been treated properly all along.

The matter is not yet settled. People are still waiting. I do not know if they are Waiting for Godot, like in the play, but they are definitely still waiting, and the money keeps piling up. The workers are getting older, some are already retired. Imagine what a few thousand dollars would mean to these people who have been waiting 14 years to get it and who are receiving $9,000 a year in pension benefits. These people have never earned enough money to brag and say “We are on top of it”.

These people have been and are still being treated unfairly, because they are still waiting for a solution. Now the government is picking on these same people, by taking the surplus in their pension funds and in some way jeopardizing their secure old age and the future of their pension plan.

My hon. colleagues have talked about the government using and abusing closure. Of course, we live in a democracy, and our role in this place is to represent our constituents and defend their interests by opposing bills that could hurt them.

A lot of my constituents work for the government. Even if that were not the case, it would still make sense to me to defend the constituents of my colleagues and even those of the government members.

When we want to address numerous amendments in relation to a bill, closure is brought. This cynical government rises and says “The debate is over”. This is what gagging the opposition is all about.

In this parliament, the government has resorted to closure more than 50 times. It might as well tell us right from the beginning if it does not want us to talk. We have something to say on each of these amendments.

There are things that are disturbing and one of them is how little the government cares about its employees. I am thinking in particular about public servants, because they form the largest group. We can identify with them more, since we have worked a lot with them on recent bills, and particularly on the pay equity issue. Still, this does not keep us from also caring about Canadian forces and RCMP personnel.

It is somewhat alarming to see that ordinary citizens count for so little. By citizens I also mean women, many of whom work with great dedication in the public service, that is for the government. They are watching us today and wondering how far this will go.

The government helped itself to the surplus in the employment insurance fund—public services also pay employment insurance. Now, it is helping itself to the surplus in their pension funds. There is no end to this. And, as I said, but I can never say it often enough, the government has not even settled the very sensitive issue of pay equity.

I will conclude by asking for the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That all government members, since the government has imposed time allocation on consideration of Bill C-78, at report stage, be prevented from speaking during today's debate on this bill.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32, which is now at report stage, proposes to renew the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The bill addresses the following aspects: pollution prevention, toxic substances, air and water purity, pollution control and waste, environmental emergencies, biotechnology, federal government operations on federal and aboriginal land, administration and application of penalties, information gathering, guidelines and codes of practice, and finally, public participation.

This act may be full of good intentions, but it is equally full of imprecision.

It must be kept in mind that the study of Bill C-32 started back in the fall of 1998, and ran until April 1999. After 60 sittings, a total of 580 amendments had been submitted during the clause by clause examination of the bill. The committee adopted 160 of them. As a result, the bill is inconsistent in many regards.

The most critical point in this bill is, in my opinion, the lack of harmonization with the provinces. While the original version called for the federal government to act within the spirit of intergovernmental agreements, the government majority softened that requirement by adding the words “endeavour to” before the word “act”.

The Bloc Quebecois maintains that the federal government must always work within a framework of harmonization with the provinces, with a view to avoiding duplication and overlap of legislation and regulations.

Since Quebec has its own specific nature, we insist on being allowed to speak for ourselves when our interests are at stake. Despite the fact that, in theory, Bill C-32 acknowledges that the environment is a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments, in practice it delegates no powers to the provinces.

The purpose of Bill C-32 is to enhance still further the federal government's preponderance as far as environmental protection is concerned. That is the major point on which amendments are required. Otherwise the situation will get worse instead of better.

On the subject of products of biotechnology, the bill establishes a federal safety net and the authority to make regulations for the safe and effective use of biotechnology for environmental purposes. Clauses 104 to 115 apply here.

What does it mean? Where are we in the vital matter of biotechnologies? Who is prepared to educate the public? In what area does the bill require products of biotechnology that meet international standards and are subject to recognized scientific rules? When will we deal with labelling? Who, in the government, will finally take the lead in this matter and not look at biotechnology only in terms of toxicity?

The weakness of clauses 104 to 115 and their approach to the subject of biotechnology is a bit confusing.

There is another aspect of the harmonization of this bill with the provincial governments I consider very important. It is a field of jurisdiction in which the Province of Quebec is at the forefront and needs no help the federal government. I am referring to the control of water, land and air pollution in agriculture.

Quebec pork producers complete the agri-environmental picture of their farms. Each farm is studied to determine its physical characteristics, level of pollution, production capacity and quantity of input so that the impact of the pork producers on their community is known quasi scientifically. It is easy therefore to correct discrepancies.

This picture will be extended to other farming activities. It is a procedure that is unique in North America and a real agri-environmental realization.

Farmers in Quebec are also required to produce an agri-environmental plan, which is a management tool or an integrated fertilization plan for farms. These plans are done by professionals or farmers who have taken courses and proper training. This is an example of making this community responsible, which has already proven effective.

For all these reasons, we have faith in our provincial government, which is a leader in environmental matters and must be given full latitude in areas under its jurisdiction.

In light of the amendments adopted in committee, the Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill at report stage and third reading.

[International Composting Awareness Week, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, May 2 to 8 is International Composting Awareness Week. The theme is “It's your turn...Compost”, with the emphasis on the value of compost in a number of sectors of our society.

According to the last study of the Composting Council of Canada, over 1,650,000 tonnes of organic matter have been composted, representing a 23.5% increase in the last two years.

The importance of compost in improving soil quality and the need for composting are becoming increasingly evident. The end product is used for gardening, landscaping and various agricultural and horticultural applications.

Composting is a social commitment to our environment, offering a means to reduce the production of waste while putting organic matter to productive use.

It's your turn...Compost.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member. I know one of his concerns is agriculture. He talked a lot about social housing and health care, but I would also have liked him to deal with agriculture. I have a question for him on this.

When the Liberals came to power, the Department of Agriculture had a $2.2 billion budget. For fiscal 2001-02, it is forecast to be $1.1 billion, a cut and a shortfall in the order of 48%.

Moreover, during the same period the government, through the Department of Agriculture, has started charging farmers fees in at least 42 areas where, previously, services were provided free of charge.

I would like to know what the member thinks of this situation and how our farmers are going to be able to remain competitive in such an environment.

[National Horse Of Canada Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must say from the outset that I certainly agree with all the praise about the Canadian horse, because it is true and because the Canadian horse is part of Quebecers' collective memory.

However, unlike my colleague, I cannot name all the breeders of the Canadian horse in my riding, because there are simply too many of them. Having worked with them, I know for a fact that there is a long list of them, because Quebec remains the province most interested in that breed.

I cannot name them all like the hon. member did, but I was flattered that he would mention Cap-Rouge, which is located in my riding and is a place where horses have always been kept. I will mention other locations later on.

I rise to address Bill C-454, introduced by the hon. member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey. Its short title is the National Horse of Canada Act. I should point out that the bill does not include a summary explaining its purpose and the reasons for its tabling.

However, the full title of the bill, an act to provide for the recognition of the Canadian Horse as the national horse of Canada, sheds more light. The objective is not to legislate on a national breed of horse that is already famous, but to declare the Canadian horse a symbol of Canada.

In fact, the Liberal member for Lanark—Carleton, who tabled a similar bill—I even recognized some of the wording used in 1995—made his objective clear when he said “We need more symbols to add to the rich tapestry which is Canada's history—If we embrace the goal of the bill it would make some small contribution to national unity”.

It is telling that the bill before us today makes no mention of New France or Quebec and only refers to the North American colony. Actually the first horse that came to this land in 1665 as a gift from the King of France, Louis XIV, arrived in Quebec City. It is in New France that this breed, which became known as the Canadian horse, thrived and increased in number, reaching 12,000 in 1760.

In fact, when we talk about the Canadian horse, the word Canadian, according to the Glossaire du parler français au Canada , refers to a colony of French origin established in New France or to an inhabitant of French Canada, as opposed to the word English, which refers to those inhabitants of English origin.

It is probably not a coincidence that the member for Lanark—Carleton introduced this bill only a few weeks after the Front commun interraces du patrimoine québécois submitted a request to the Quebec minister of agriculture, fisheries and food for the recognition of the Canadian horse.

At a time when serious events are unfolding on the international scene and when we should be working for peace, it is sad to see this House using some of its precious time in another flag flap, especially considering the fact that, if I am not mistaken, the Canadian horse was recognized by the federal cabinet in 1909. Why rekindle the debate on this issue?

It must be noted also that this bill is only symbolic. It does not propose any concrete measures to protect the breed it purports to promote. I take this opportunity to mention that this government has a tendency to favour verbal commitments that do not lead to any concrete measures.

For example, at the same time the government signed the Rio convention on biodiversity, it abolished dozens of researcher positions at the Canadian Museum of Nature. These researchers were working on an inventory of endangered species. How are people to protect biodiversity if they have no idea which species are threatened?

Another example is the legislation the government wanted to pass to protect endangered species, but which contained no protection measures as if it were enough to name the species, as with the Canadian horse, to save it from extinction.

Quebecers, however, have taken the necessary action to protect the Canadian horse. In 1880, for example, François Pilote—the founder of the École d'agriculture de La Pocatière, which became the faculty of agriculture where I studied, the oldest French language agricultural institution in North America—along with Édouard Barnard and Dr. Couture, a veterinarian, did something about the survival of this race by selecting and breeding the best specimens of the time and establishing a stud book.

More recently, when the Canadian horse went through a difficult period in the late sixties and early seventies, the Government of Quebec stepped in with special programs at the Deschambault farm. The number of horses again began to grow following the dispersal and breeding of the Deschambault herd in 1981, and with the help of the program to develop the Canadian horse.

From a total population of barely 700 in 1984, the number of horses increased from 975 to 1,360 between 1986 and 1996, and now stands at 2,000.

I think that the member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, who introduced this bill, is well aware of the problems faced by farmers for, in addition to sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, he runs a farm himself. I therefore urge both him and his colleagues to use their talents to talk about the real needs of our farmers and to develop policies and programs to help them.

The committee works in a spirit of co-operation and we should be concerned with several urgent issues, namely genetically modified foods or Bill C-80 revising and consolidating certain acts respecting food and agricultural commodities.

I seize this opportunity to remind the hon. member that I introduced, last Monday, Motion M-619 calling on the federal government to respond to the decreasing number of farms and their increasing size by adopting, in co-operation with the provincial governments, a policy to recognize and support small farms.

I believe that all members in all parties will recognize that this proposal on small farms deserves to be examined and that, if adopted, it will have a real impact on farmers' living conditions.

The agri-food industry's fantastic development is very promising in terms of job creation and exports. However, this should not lead us to neglect small farms, often family farms, which are the basis of the social fabric of rural areas where Canadian horses can often be found.

I must oppose Bill C-454. In no way will it contribute to the preservation and development of the Canadian horse. This bill is simply an attempt to use the name of this breed and serve the purposes of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who wants to suppress historical facts and create a unique Canadian identity by multiplying symbols.

In view of the fact that the so-called Canadian horse was introduced and developed in Quebec, that those who trained this breed were inhabitants of what became Quebec and that those same people managed to prevent its extinction, it would be more appropriate for the National Assembly of Quebec to recognize this particular breed of horse.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 was introduced at first reading by the Minister of Justice in March 1999. It is a product of the strategy to renew the justice system for young people, which was introduced in May 1998.

The Bloc Quebecois and all the stakeholders in Quebec are opposed to that reform, because it is useless and dangerous in terms of its anticipated impact on crime reduction in the long run.

The current legislation has allowed Quebec to enjoy the lowest youth crime rate in Canada. In the rest of the country, it has decreased youth crime by 23% between 1991 and 1997.

Given these results, one wonders why the act should be changed. Did the minister make this reform strictly for political reasons, or did she yield to the pressure of the right in Canada?

Why did the minister not see fit to refer to the Quebec model for youth justice in the principles and the preamble of the bill? Since she alludes to Quebec in her comments, she should have made explicit reference to our province, as was pointed out by the Quebec coalition opposing this bill, which feels that:

The alleged flexibility given to the provinces to implement the act is in fact just a series of limited powers that rest on the shoulders of crown prosecutors. Nowhere in the bill do we find confirmation of the right of the provinces to apply their own model.

Some extremely repressive measures are found in Bill C-68, which includes 14 and 15-year old children among those offenders who could be sentenced as adults. I emphasize the fact that these are 14 and 15 year olds. Anyone who has been active in education with teenagers or, better still, who has raised a good family that included teenagers, knows that at age 14 and 15 they are not yet adults. They are still children in some respects.

Bill C-68 establishes a sentence of custody for young people at higher risk and repeat offenders in cases of violent offences.

In addition, it is worth noting that the publication of the names of adolescents would be authorized if the adolescent receives an adult sentence or a youth sentence for violent crimes, if the adolescent is at liberty in the community but has committed a crime or been charged with a criminal act or if the adolescent authorizes release on reaching adulthood and is not under custodial sentence.

Here again, you have to know something about adolescents. The Bloc Quebecois contends that this publicity will give importance to certain young offenders, especially in the case of young people who are members of street gangs or groups. It might be an idea to look at what is going on in the schools across the country. The phenomenon of gangs is everywhere.

We therefore support the current restrictions intended to protect the reputation of innocent families. Publicizing the identity of adolescents could also have the unfortunate effect of creating a false sense of security among the members of the public. We might think that, once we know the identity of the offender, we are safe and there is no more problem.

We must also look at the cost of applying the law. In Quebec alone, the new Young Offenders Act should cost an additional $69 million in implementation costs over a three year period. How much of the money set aside in the finance minister's last budget will be left for crime prevention? Because it is through prevention that crime is reduced, not through punishment. There are costs associated with prevention, but the long term results are much more promising.

We therefore call on the federal government to transfer full jurisdiction for youth justice, along with the associated funding, to Quebec. Unfortunately the Minister of Justice has failed to convince the rest of Canada of the effectiveness of Quebec's approach. In fact, the proof is in the crime rates.

The Bloc Quebecois is concerned about the future impact on Quebec's crime rate of the tougher approach other provinces will be allowed to take. We also wonder about the latitude judges will have in handing down sentences intended to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and standardized throughout Canada.

Judges cannot ignore sentences given elsewhere. Case law, by its very nature, requires that judgments handed down elsewhere be considered and similar sentences given for similar offences.

Finally, various experts from Quebec spoke out against this bill. I am thinking of the association of organizations interested in the new young offenders legislation, criminologists André Normandeau and Cécile Toutant, lawyer Jean Trépanier, and André Payette, the spokesperson for the Association des centres jeunesse du Québec, who has seen many things in his work at the Supreme Court of Canada and as Quebec's president of the bar.

By placing the young person's responsibility foremost in a new statement of principle, the minister is running the risk of destabilizing a system which has, up until now, been able to substantially reduce the juvenile crime rate.

Finally, the government has not explicitly recognized in its bill the possibility for Quebec to maintain, and particularly to expand, its youth justice model. The presumed flexibility in the bill is an illusion, since it is not included in the preamble or the guiding principles of the bill.

In Quebec, as in some other provinces, alternatives to detention have been put in place. Considering that incarceration is not the appropriate solution for most cases that come under the Young Offenders Act, it is the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois that it is essential for such alternative measures to be given more attention.

In her letter of May 3, the Quebec Minister of Justice reminded her federal counterpart:

—that the planned reform is based on false premises. Youth crime has been on a steady decline for a number of years already, everywhere in Canada. This is particularly true in Quebec, which has the lowest crime rate in Canada.

According to the Minister:

The bill—is neither necessary nor justified, and is liable to imperil the rehabilitation model that has been implemented in Quebec. Concretely, if our model is to be maintained, this means that Quebec will have to be excluded from the bill, which is based on a repressive philosophy and which Quebec will have no choice but to apply, like all the rest of Canada.

For all these reasons, we are asking that this bill be withdrawn or, if the minister does not comply with that request, that Bill C-68 be amended by adding after clause 3 a clause 3.1, which would read as follows:

3.1. This act is not applicable to Quebec.

We also wish clause 196 to be replaced by the following:

1. This act replaces the Young Offenders Act, except in Quebec, where it remains in force.