Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was quebec.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Bloc MP for Louis-Hébert (Québec)

Lost her last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Genetically Modified Organisms March 29th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Health did not deign to reply to my question.

Millions of dollars are being spent by his department to promote genetically modified organisms, while no study has been carried out to date on their long term consequences.

Will the minister admit that, as Minister of Health, when there is a general concern about this issue, it is his duty to undertake, as soon as possible, a study on the long term effects of GMOs on people's health?

Transgenic Foods March 28th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, since 1994, the government has paid close to $6 million to biotechnology industries in order to promote GMOs. It recently spent $300,000 in advertising in order to tell people they are being well protected.

Instead of wasting people's money on promoting GMOs, would the minister not be better off investing it in studies informing us of their real consequences?

Transgenic Foods March 28th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, consumers, farmers and even scientists have concerns about the consequences of genetically modified organisms and the lack of government control.

How can the Minister of Health justify his investing in advertising on the safety of GMOs when there has been no study of their long term effects?

Genetically Modified Foods March 24th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, on June 23, I submitted an access to information request with a very simple question: what is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's process for approving genetically modified foods. Nine months later, I received some documents, but no answer to my question.

My question is for the Minister of Health. What reason is there for this lack of transparency other than that there is no approval process or that the process is so deficient that the minister is too ashamed to make it public?

Points Of Order March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, this morning democracy took a turn for the worse in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. On December 15, 1999, the committee passed the following motion:

That this Committee study and report to the House about a clear and mandatory labelling mechanism for genetically modified organisms.

Contrary to the decision by the committee, the chair, despite our repeated requests, has refused to call the sub-committee on procedure in order to establish a schedule for calling witnesses, drafting a report and so on. In the face of this refusal, I tabled, in February, a notice of motion to have the decision taken by the committee in December 1999 implemented.

This morning, we began the debate on this motion, but after one hour, the question was put on the motion, contrary to Standing Order 116 provides, and I quote:

  1. In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Furthermore, at page 855, Marleau-Montpetit, provides:

In general, the rules governing the process of debate in committees are the same as those in the House of Commons. However, the Standing Orders exempt committees from certain rules which apply in the House: those governing the election of the Speaker, the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times a member may speak on an issue and the length of speeches.

The decision by the committee chair contravenes the rules of the House. And yet, Marleau-Montpetit provides on pages 856 and 857, and I quote:

The Chair presides over the deliberations in committee, recognizing speakers and ensuring that the deliberations adhere to established practices and rules, as well as to any particular requirements which the committee may have imposed upon itself and its members.

Although I had not finished speaking, the committee chair, once again contrary to the rules established for the House and for committees, immediately put my motion to a vote. Marleau-Montpetit goes on:

Any ruling of the Chair may be appealed to the committee. There is no appeal to the House on rulings of a committee chair except through committee report.

Generally, if the chair had properly carried out his duty to protect the right of expression of parliamentarians, he would have allowed me to finish my speech, particularly since the committee had never adopted the special rule limiting the duration of interventions and the time allowed to debate a motion.

Mr. Speaker, I once again appeal to your sense of democracy to intervene and put an end to a situation that is, unfortunately, occurring too often in committee.

You need to overlook the rule that you are not allowed to intervene in committee deliberations. There have already been instances of a Speaker intervening in order to put an end to a practice that was jeopardizing members' freedom of expression. I quote Beauchesne, 6th edition, citation 760(4).

760(4). In 1986, after a grievance was raised in the House concerning procedure in a committee, the Speaker undertook to write to all committee chairmen pointing out that when a grievance is not resolved satisfactorily in committee it often results in the time of the House being taken when the grievance is raised in the guise of a question of privilege. ( Debates , December 9, 1986, page 1932).

It is your responsibility, under Standing Order 10, to intervene in order to put an end to such practices. The credibility of the House and of the committees is at stake.

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 353

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on November 1, 2008.”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 333

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on July 1, 2006.”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 301

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 3 shall come into force on the day that is five years after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 2 shall come into force on the day that is three years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 287

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Section 3 shall come into force on the day that is one year after the day on which this Act is assented to, and sections 1 and 2 shall come into force on the day that is ten years after the day on which this Act is assented to.”

An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference March 13th, 2000

moved:

Motion No. 280

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. Not later than March 31, 2001, the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to intergovernmental affairs shall undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act, and shall within a year after the review is undertaken or within such further time as the House of Commons may authorize, submit a report to Parliament thereon including a statement of any changes the committee would recommend.”