Monique Guay

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am going to be as eloquent as my colleague was, but I will try to express my point of view, which is very similar to that of all my colleagues here in this House.

I think that we have been in politics long enough and we have seen enough bills before this House to realize that this bill deals with two totally unrelated issues.

As my colleague mentioned, if we have to pass a specific bill to put these $2 billion for health in a trust, then let us do it.

But here, the government is tricking us by rolling two bills into one. It is trying to get us to swallow this when it knows perfectly well that we will not go for it.

We agree about the $2 billion. All the members would vote in favour of a bill dealing exclusively with this issue. There would be no problem; it would pass in a flash. The members opposite know that, and this is why they are trying to get us to swallow another equalization bill.

As my colleague already said, we cannot accept that. We cannot accept this bill as is. We want it split and sent back to committee. Once it is split, we will be able to consider the first part and deal with the issue of the $2 billion.

We have been talking about these $2 billion for a year. Right now, people in hospitals are waiting, emergency rooms are clogged, it is just crazy. In my community, Saint-Jérôme, ER patients have to be sent to other hospitals because of the overload.

Send us the $2 billion and stop toying with us. It is just ridiculous. The time is now. We need that money and we know what to do with it. Do not worry, when it gets into the provinces' pockets, whatever government they have in place, the money will go directly to health care, directly to the people.

What is the government waiting for to give them the money? It is toying with us again. How long will it take to pass this bill? It is just making things more complicated.

When my colleague talked about retroactivity, she was entirely correct. This is not in the bill. Will it be agreed to in committee? If not, obviously we will vote against this.

Furthermore, it is not true that negotiations will take one month because the parties have been trying to reach an agreement for five years. Not one province considers the equalization formula, in its current state, to be fair and equitable. Consequently, we are told, “We are going to propose this just in case”.

This is an election bill because we are headed for an election. So, they are taking advantage of the situation to delay things for one year, without any retroactivity. This is dishonest for the public and the provinces.

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, he wrote that, in such a scandalous situation, patriotism must come before partisanship.

Will the Prime Minister admit that, in his actions, he chose the party and not the public interest?

[Government Contracts, February 13th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the letter the senior executive of the Liberal Party of Canada wrote to the Prime Minister was to tell him that funds had been misappropriated and, as finance minister and senior minister from Quebec, he had the ability to do something about it.

When a minister, now Prime Minister, knows something, has the ability to do something about it and deliberately does not act, then he is either guilty or complicit. Which is it?

[Government Contracts, February 11th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General confirmed the Bloc Quebecois' worst fears. The former prime minister, in complicity with the former finance minister, shamelessly misused public funds.

After having applied a code of secrecy to an incorrect response by his government, according to which his companies had obtained only $137,000 in government contracts, when he knew the contracts were worth in excess of $161 million, and having hidden a few lines in more than 400 pages of legislation to exempt his shipping company from paying more than $100 million in taxes, the Prime Minister would now have us believe that he did not know, when everyone else knew for years, that his government managed the sponsorship program in violation of all the rules.

In feigning ignorance, the Prime Minister is condoning corruption. The Bloc Quebecois will be there during the next election campaign to make sure that the public inquiry is not used as a smoke screen for the former finance minister's irresponsibility.

[Food and Drugs Act, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-398, introduced by my colleague from Scarborough Southwest. I am speaking for my colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve who, unfortunately, could not be here today. It is a pleasure because I am personally very concerned about foods. I have a family and children, and I closely monitor what they eat.

That said, the Standing Orders were changed to make all private members' bills votable. They can then be referred to committee.

We must give bills the best possible chance to shine and be considered in committee, so they can be amended and improved, or the conclusion simply reached that they are no good. In which case, the bill is sent back to the House and defeated.

Consequently, we must give each bill a chance. It is quite difficult to learn all the details before a bill is scrutinized in committee, before witnesses are asked to make suggestions to improve it and before a final decision is made.

The Bloc Quebecois agrees with the principle of the bill. However, it is clear that if it goes to committee, we will move quite significant amendments. I cannot, perhaps, provide full details, but if I understand correctly, labelling is not a simple matter. We will have to see how to proceed.

We must have this discussion on foods. When this House decided to ask cigarette companies to change their packaging, the industry was in an uproar. These kinds of things always cause uproars.

Obviously, the restaurant and foodservices association will be opposed because its members do not want to spend any money. We will also need to calculate what kind of savings this will mean to health.

Consequently, we need experts to tell the committee how much it will all cost. Then, we will be able to make a final decision. However, if the bill does not have the opportunity to get to that stage, obviously, it will die because a broader discussion will not have taken place.

As regards the labelling of cigarette packages, hon. members may remember the substantive debates and the discussions that took place here in the House. We finally got the message across. Now, the labelling on cigarette packages is much more detailed, and I am convinced that many people stopped smoking for that reason.

Of course, the tobacco industry did not want such labelling, because it is losing money. However, as parliamentarians, we had a responsible decision to make about health and we made that decision.

I think it is pretty well the same thing with the bill before us. We have a duty to act responsibly and to discuss this measure, because this is where we are headed.

I am told that it will be very difficult because, for example, there are all kinds of ways to make a submarine. We must take a very serious look at this issue. I do not think that we want absolutely each and every product to be labelled. There are specific things for which we want labelling, and these will be discussed in committee when we look at the feasibility of this measure.

There are chains of restaurants, such as Subway, that already indicate the fat content of certain ingredients. There are two or three meals on the menu that are really low in calories and fat content. So, this is already being done in some restaurant chains.

Here, we are primarily targeting such chains, because we are talking about businesses that have sales of $10 million. The local food outlet is not affected by this legislation, which is really aimed at large chains such as St-Hubert, Subway, McDonald's and others.

In my opinion, it is very important that we have this debate. We all know how colourful Americans can be, and I say this in all friendship. Not too long ago, I heard about someone in the United States who did a test. He ate at McDonald's for breakfast, lunch and supper for a month. He became seriously ill, so much so that he even developed a psychiatric disease. It is easy to see that we should have a better idea of what we eat.

I personally do not go to McDonald's very often, it not being my favourite meal choice. It is true, however, that from time to time we all go out for a treat like that because we have children, but we do need to know what we are eating, and I think that there has not been enough progress made in this area so far.

We need to have the possibility of progressing further. This bill stirs up debate, although it may not be the ideal bill. Many people will come up with this or that amendment, will want to see indication of fat content, sugar content and so on. We will see how it progresses, however. There will be a discussion in committee, and then decisions will be reached on what we really want to see included in a label.

There is reference to the GMOs. In talking with the public, we come to realize this is a very popular subject. People do want to know. They want to know if they are eating something that has been genetically modified. In my opinion, they are absolutely entitled to know, since they are the ones paying for it.

It is absolutely normal for questions to be raised about this. I would like very much to see this bill examined in committee, the standing health committee in particular. What I want most of all is to see it accorded the necessary importance to be debated.

Even if this bill is not the one that eventually gets passed, we must at least be able to continue addressing the issue so that one day people will really know how many calories are in their food, and whether they are eating genetically modified food. We need to make progress in that direction.

Maybe then the food industry will also be forced to sell us much healthier products. Indeed, food vendors will have no other choice because people will no longer eat just any kind of food; they will want to eat quality products.

That being said, when the time comes to vote, the Bloc Quebecois will support the principle of the bill. I should add that the Association des consommateurs du Québec is also in favour of this bill.

Finally, I want to mention an article that I read in Le Devoir . It was entitled “Junk food just as harmful as nicotine”.

The article says that malnutrition and bad food habits are just as dangerous as cigarettes and nicotine.

We know that cardiovascular diseases are now affecting people at an increasingly younger age. More and more children suffer from obesity. That must change. We must pay more attention to our health. We must see to it that obesity stops being a problem in our children. A lot of children are obese because young people these days are less active and also because they are not careful about what they eat.

We must create a whole new culture. I believe that looking at this bill and its possibilities will help us go forward.

[Softwood Lumber, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the softwood lumber crisis has affected more than 10,000 jobs in Quebec alone, and clearly the measures adopted so far are not helping either the industry or the workers to get through the crisis.

Will the federal government decide at last to announce phase two of its plan to assist the softwood lumber industry, making improvements to the employment insurance program and providing loan guarantees to companies?

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, February 6th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the last two oral question periods, the Minister of Social Development has found a way to praise her government for realizing a savings of several billion dollars at a direct cost to low-income seniors, through the guaranteed income supplement.

How can she support the strategy of the former finance minister which was never to control his government's spending, but rather to take money from the pockets of the most vulnerable?

How can the minister turn up her nose at the Bloc Quebecois proposal that urges retroactive reimbursement of the billions of dollars owed to low-income seniors, and still support the Prime Minister's initiative to exempt his ships from the Income Tax Act when he was Minister of Finance?

This double standard is simply repugnant and shows everyone what a lack of respect the minister, the Prime Minister, and this government have for our senior citizens who have been and continue to be the honoured builders of our communities.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond briefly. My colleague is totally right, this double standard is unacceptable.

It is also unacceptable that workers under the Canada Labour Code are so behind compared to Quebec workers. In Quebec, we have a labour code that is much more advanced than the Canada Labour Code. We are bringing forth amendments and changes to try to improve the Canada Labour Code, but this House does not want to listen.

I introduced anti-scab legislation and a vote was held. We came very close to succeeding. You can be assured that I will continue to defend legislation that supports workers. I will continue to work with the colleagues who support me and we will try once again to make this government move forward, which is so difficult to do.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I am also directly affected by the Mirabel issue, since my riding is next to that of the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

These are fights we have waged in the House of Commons. I remember being part of a regional coalition fighting for the Mirabel airport. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles will remember that. This is one of the nicest airports in the world, but it has been underutilized; Dorval was the preferred airport. A horrendous amount of money was put into this airport. And they still want to invest more millions of dollars there, because they are having problems with it, as my colleague knows.

Lives have been broken. We have an infrastructure that will soon become obsolete if we do not use it. That fact is being ignored. This is what the Liberal government is all about. It does not take at heart the interests of Quebeckers. It is just mismanaging their affairs. Of course, it is investing money in the Toronto airport, which it wants to establish as a transportation hub. That is the way it works.

We are here to stand for our constituents, advance issues and fight for the Mirabel airport. During the election campaign, you can bet you will hear about Mirabel. We will have to keep fighting for the interests of the people in our regions. We have to reopen this airport, restore its value, and make it operational, so that flights may eventually be transferred from Dorval to Mirabel.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 5th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his comments.

I also want to salute the constituents of my riding of Laurentides and tell them that it is always a pleasure and an honour for me to represent them here in the House of Commons. As we know, there will soon be an election and there will be some changes in the ridings, but I wanted to salute the people in my current riding.

I have been sitting in this Parliament for over 10 years and I have seen more than my fair share of throne speeches, red books, government promises, budgets and committee reports. Again, one would have expected something much more interesting, something that would truly benefit ordinary people in their daily lives. But it is not the case with the throne speech.

It is very clear from the outset that there is absolutely nothing for workers. In a Speech from the Throne, one would expect to find some concrete measures to help workers.

There is nothing on employment insurance, there is no anti-scab legislation, and there is not even an attempt to try to find a solution for these people. In the Abitibi, Radio-Nord employees have already been on strike for 15 long months. These people no longer have an income and they are picketing in minus 40 degree Celsius temperatures, while their bosses are using scabs. This is in 2004. This still exists here, at the federal level, but it should not.

There is nothing in this speech for these people, or for seasonal workers whose situation is unbearable. There is nothing to provide much greater accessibility to employment insurance, even though we know that the employment insurance fund is generating huge surpluses. Yet, only four out of ten workers qualify for benefits. It does not make any sense to still find ourselves in this situation.

The surpluses that are generated should be given back to the workers who pay for an insurance and who should be able to collect benefits. But this is not the case right now. On the contrary, the poor are getting poorer.

The government has been dragging its heels on the issue of parental leave. We have been wanting to settle this matter as soon as possible. In Quebec, a decision was rendered in our favour. What did we hear today from the human resources minister? He told the House that he was keeping all of his options open, which means that he could appeal the decision. That is probably what he will be doing.

Again, we will not be treated fairly on the issue of parental leave. We will have to fight for years to come and go through some things we would rather avoid. We could find a way to settle the problem. We could sit together, negotiate and quickly come to an agreement. However, the government is making very clear its lack of desire to come to an agreement with Quebec. And that is unfortunate. It is sad that this whole issue was not mentioned in the throne speech. It is sad for the parents who have been asking for this for a very long time and who really need it.

There is not a single word in the throne speech about the missile defence shield, this megaproject that we hear so much about here and for which the Prime Minister is showing so much support that some Liberal members have asked to have a free vote on the issue. The Prime Minister turned down their request.

Even members of his own caucus are against the missile defence shield. We do not know how much it will cost and what it will do. Billions of dollars will be involved, and all we are going to do is agree to whatever the U.S. will say. If the government were to consult the people, to ask constituents what they think about a missile defence shield, it would get a very clear answer: a resounding no. We do not want it because we are not warriors. We do not want it because we do not know how much it will cost. We do not know what its environmental impact will be. We do not know either what other impact it could have. No studies have been carried out, so we are just rushing into this.

You only have to talk to U.S. congressmen and senators to see how extremely divided they themselves are on this issue.

In fact, they believe it is unnecessary, because it would cost a fortune, and because it is not true that it would stop terrorism. A missile defence shield is not going to stop terrorism. Terrorists will continue to hijack planes and infiltrate countries they wish to inflict damage on. So, it is not the solution.

Once again, it is being done in secret, behind our backs and behind closed doors, and they are trying to get away with something. This matter should be dealt with in an open and informed manner. This is not what is happening right now.

I hope that we will be able to stand up to the Americans. This is extremely important. We cannot do everything they want. We must evaluate this according to our criteria, our abilities and what Canada and Quebec really want. If this work is not done here, there will be huge battles in Parliament. There will be a public uprising. There is nothing about this in the throne speech.

I know that I do not have much time because 10 minutes is quite short. However, I want to consider the following. The throne speech mentions the provinces. It says:

Jurisdiction must be respected. But Canadians do not go about their daily lives—

I really like the “but”, because it opens the door to anything. It continues:

But Canadians do not go about their daily livesworried about which jurisdiction does this or that.

Once again, they want to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Once again, they want to tell us what we must do.

In terms of municipalities, there have been squabbles about the millennium scholarships for years. There was committee after committee. It never worked and yet, once again, they are talking about student loans, when Quebec has a loan and scholarship program that is very equitable for our students.

They are encroaching on our jurisdiction, our municipalities. In fact, municipalities are a provincial responsibility. I cannot read it all because there is not enough time, but if people read it, they will see that the government is interfering when it comes to municipalities.

In terms of health, the throne speech states:

The government will also appoint a new Chief Public Health Officer for Canada—and undertake a much-needed overhaul of federal health protection through aCanada Health Protection Act.

As far as I know, health comes totally under provincial jurisdiction, and the government will again create another position and another committee to tell us what we should do in our own province.

It is not true that problems in the health system are the same all across Canada and in Quebec. We can be responsible and manage our own problems. Give us the money, and do not worry, we will do the job. We do not need someone to tell us what to do in our own province. We are perfectly capable of managing our own affairs.

This document sounds like a wish list. I have seen that many times before. There is also a reference to parliamentary reform. This is unbelievable. I cannot tell you how many recommendations I have made in committee in 10 years.

For example, the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities contained 17 unanimous recommendations. All political parties were in agreement. The committee passed on these 17 unanimous recommendations to the minister, hoping that she would look at them. That was a year and a half, or two years ago. None of them was accepted. This is just a simple example, but it is an important one.

And now we are being told that changes will be made to the way Parliament works and that it will make everything better. The government should start by following up on the reports that have already been tabled, and then we will see.

I must say that some extraordinary work has been done here in the House of Commons. This is why I would have liked to see the work of parliamentarians and the recommendations from committees reflected in the Speech from the Throne, but this is not what we see here.

As far as I am concerned, the Speech from the Throne is just another speech, like many others, that will produce no results. Promises are made, but they never lead anywhere.