Serge Cardin

[Canada Information Office, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the CIO has spent $1.5 million on media surveillance.

As we have seen with Human Resources Development Canada, this government suffers from information-gathering syndrome, a malady that has now spread to the CIO.

Does the minister realize that, after first having Big Brother at HRDC, now we have its evil twin at the CIO?

[Canada Information Office, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the mind of this government, the problem of Canadian unity seems to exist only in Quebec.

I would like to ask the public works minister a question. When the CIO awards a contract to Jacques Cloutier to “assess the impact of pilot projects on regional communications pooling in Abitibi and in Quebec since 1998” and when another contract is awarded for communications at Val d'Or, is the purpose not more to inform the government than to inform the public?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak on Bill C-11, I must set the stage.

I would point out quickly that, on January 28, 1999, the federal Minister of Natural Resources announced the closure of the Phalen coal mine and the privatization of the Prince mine, both of which are on Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia and managed by the crown corporation Devco. Some 1,700 miners worked for the corporation, and approximately 1,000 will end up unemployed in a region with an unemployment rate of 25% on occasion and even permanently.

At the same time, the minister announced aid of $110 million to provide the miners with severance pay and early retirement packages and an additional investment of $68 million to boost the region's economy. The Government of Nova Scotia also announced, last fall, that it would invest $12 million in the long term economic development of Cape Breton.

Obviously, some people are dissatisfied with the conditions of separation and the proposed severance pay totalling $110 million. Since February 1999, Devco employees have been putting pressure on the federal government to change its decisions.

A committee of the Nova Scotia legislature comprising representatives of all parties called on the federal government on December 23 to improve the offers and increase the amount of money paid to the workers. According to this committee, approximately 230 miners with 25 years of service or more are excluded from Devco's early retirement programs as they are currently defined.

On January 2, 2000, exasperated miners declared a strike to protest the closing of the mine and to obtain better lump sum payments. A few days later, they set up barricades in order to block delivery of coal to Nova Scotia's two generating stations. Some of them even went on a hunger strike.

After long deliberations between workers and representatives of the federal government and the mine, an agreement in principle was reached in mid January, and the barricades came down. Nevertheless, negotiations in camera appear not to be concluded yet.

Devco was established in 1967 by the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act. Its assets include the Prince and Phalen mines, the Donkin mine site, the corporation wharf and rail line, its coal processing plant and the related infrastructures.

Devco being a crown corporation, the Financial Administration Act provides that it cannot dispose of all or substantially all of its assets, unless authorized by legislationaw. Therefore, the main objective of Bill C-11 is to allow Devco to dispose of its assets. It amends the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act to allow the private sector to acquire the corporation's assets, so that the government can exit the coal mining business.

The purpose of clauses 2 to 4 is to allow Devco to sell its assets, before being dissolved on a day to be fixed by order in council. Clause 5 provides that the works and undertakings operated or carried on by Devco are for the general advantage of Canada. That clause is included in the act so that the Canada Labour Code can continue to apply. It should be noted that since Devco is a crown corporation, all the jurisdictional systems that apply to labour relations, occupational health and safety and labour standards have, since 1967, been governed by the Canada Labour Code.

The bill thus also provides for the continuation of the existing federal jurisdiction in these areas. It is primarily the provisions of clause 5 which bother us, because they represent federal interference in provincial affairs. There is nothing out of the ordinary about the rest of the bill.

Clause 5 is contentious because the federal government indicates that the works and undertakings operated by the corporation, whether or not it is dissolved, will be works for the general advantage of Canada, thus allowing for the continuation of the federal legislation.

By means of this clause, the federal government intends to continue the jurisdiction it had at the time, through Devco's status as a crown corporation. The federal government thus retains the right to legislate in the areas of labour relations, occupational safety and health, and labour standards, even after the corporation is dissolved.

But it is the provincial legislation and labour code which should apply once the federal government pulls out of this industry and privatizes its assets. The federal government is continuing its jurisdiction in these areas by invoking the declaratory power conferred on parliament by various sections of the Constitution Act, which allow it to extend its exclusive jurisdiction to works by declaring them to be for the advantage of Canada or of more than one province.

In fact, section 91 provides that it shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada—that is what I said, the good government of Canada; and this was not written by the Bloc—in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces.

This section also sets out the matters under the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada. And subsection 91(29) gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction when the classes, in this case the works, have been expressly excepted in the enumeration of the classes of subjects assigned exclusively to the provinces.

Section 92 identifies the matters for which the provincial legislatures may exclusively make laws. Subsection 92(10) says that local works and undertakings are a provincial matter, with the exception of what is set out in paragraphs ( a ), ( b ) and ( c ). Paragraph ( c ) provides that the works, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.

In other words, the Parliament of Canada may amend, indeed expand, the limits of its legislative jurisdiction with respect to works of a local nature declared to be of general interest to Canada. Provincial approval is not required.

The works so unilaterally declared are therefore removed from the application of provincial jurisdiction. The federal government has apparently used this type of power already close to 500 times. The use of this declaratory power by the federal government in the case of the Cape Breton Development Corporation strikes us as abusive. Why is the federal government pre-empting this jurisdiction? Does it not believe that provincial legislation will be sufficient, once agreements have been signed between it and the workers?

Looking quickly at the coal industry, it is of course very much on the way out. It also has a considerable impact on the environment. Those two arguments lead me to a degree of acceptance that the government should divest itself of this mine, mainly the fact that coal mining is not cost-effective.

There is one important element I must focus on: the matter of regional development. I believe that the federal government has not done its job in this area. It is obvious that the government has invested huge sums of money since 1967.

I have made a rapid calculation. Since 1967, the budgetary estimates for the coal division of Devco, as well as for the industrial development and economic activities division in the past two years, i.e. 1998 and 1999, total $2,568,000.

If we take an average of 1,700 employees over 33 years, this represents an average of $45,775 per worker. This is, of course, assuming that there were 1,700 workers for the 33 year period. Imagine what the federal government could have done with that money in developing Cape Breton? Now there would be full employment there.

The federal government has therefore failed to meet its responsibilities. The federal government was incapable of getting the mine to make a profit and today it wants to privatize it. Even the chairman of the corporation admits it is running up a deficit and will probably continue to do so. What are the advantages for the government in selling the mine and in continuing to interfere in provincial responsibilities?

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 2nd, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-11 be amended by deleting Clause 5.

[Single Currency, June 1st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last fall, the Bloc Quebecois launched a political debate on a single currency in North America. In May, the Bloc Quebecois initiated a debate in the Standing Committee on Finance on this issue.

Our concerns echo the discussions of a myriad of analysts, economists and financiers, who are debating the future of the Canadian dollar.

In this context, a new player, the winner of the Nobel prize in economics, Robert Mundell, waded into the debate last Thursday with the statement that a fixed rate between the Canadian dollar and the American dollar was only a question of time.

In the meantime, what are the Liberals doing? More concerned with their image than with real debate, they are hiring public relations consultants, funding their propaganda office, or keeping quiet so as not to add to their already long list of blunders.

But let us take heart: voters are not stupid. They will remember.

[Petitions, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table in this House a petition bearing 3,436 signatures and relating to excessive petroleum prices.

The people in my area are well aware that the main reason for such prices is collusion between the refineries. They are asking the government to take concrete actions to regularize petroleum prices.

[Buffet Des Nations In Sherbrooke, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, May 27, I visited 40 countries and tasted the typical foods of many of them, all in the space of a few hours.

I managed this lightning world tour by joining some 800 other guests at the 29th Buffet des nations, organized in Sherbrooke by the Service d'Aide aux néo-Canadiens.

The purpose of this great annual event, unique in Quebec and in Canada, is to raise funds to organize activities to help new immigrants integrate. In Sherbrooke alone we had some 3,740 new immigrants in 1996, 370 more than the figure in the 1991 census. Immigration is, I feel, a source of great wealth for my riding.

In closing, I wish to congratulate the President of the Service d'aide, Nicole Robitaille, and her 300 or so volunteers who worked so hard to ensure the success of this great international festival of gastronomy.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Drummond for her question, to which I will answer in a different way.

Last month, I attended a seminar of the Association des biologistes du Québec. I had the chance to participate in a session where people were asking themselves very serious questions.

They had a number of concerns. Of course, some made speeches, saying “A certain balance exists in nature”. Thousands of years were needed for organisms to develop genetically and for a balance that I would describe as a delicate balance to be achieved.

People were wondering about the impacts this will have on our food chain. Incorporating herbicides into genes will eliminate certain mosquitoes and many other things. They were wondering about human intervention in genetics.

They were concerned primarily with ethics. They were wondering how far this will go. Earlier, a colleague from the other side said “We have a tree and we modify it genetically because we believe it has too many branches or does not provide enough shade”. All reasons are good. One must wonder where it will stop.

Food is now the issue, and then it will be animals. As a matter of fact, it would seem that it is already the case. Some day, in the name of the sacrosanct development of science and technology, it will probably be human beings who will be modified.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot see the colour of your eyes but if, according to the government, they are of the wrong colour, will they be genetically modified? I am wondering. Ethics is important.

Someone said that organic food producers took their faith in their own hands. Labelling is not a constraint, it amounts to marketing. People have adopted internal regulations concerning the labelling of organic foods, in order to promote their sale and support those who buy them.

What is true for organic foods is also true for genetically modified foods. Some people do not want to eat them. We should inform them. It is more than a mere marketing decision. With regard to genetically modified foods, there is a requirement to let the people decide whether they want such foods or not.

[Supply, May 2nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you have noticed the difficulty I have in containing my joy in addressing 301 genetically modifiable organisms this afternoon.

I will begin my speech with a question. Are you sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have not eaten any genetically modified organisms today? If you are one of those who do not care, the question is irrelevant.

However, if you are one of those who wonder about the appropriateness of such a process, you want to know what you eat, you want to be free not to eat certain foods and you want to know the short, medium and long term effects of GMOs on health, agriculture and the environment. This raises many questions.

The Bloc Quebecois has taken a clear stance on the issue. We are not systematically against GMOs but are against the fact that labelling is not mandatory. As a matter of fact, my colleague from Louis-Hébert, who is our party's agriculture and agri-food critic, has succeeded in getting the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to study the issue, and I congratulate her for that.

This study will begin on May 16 et will continue until the summer recess and perhaps even until the fall, in co-operation with the three other opposition parties and, I hope, all Liberal members of goodwill. We also want to invite the scientists who will assess the potential risks of GMOs, members of the public, farmers, particularly organic farmers, and consumers to give their input.

The study of GMOs will allow us to analyse the consequences of labelling on international trade, to know the advantages and disadvantages of GMOs for agriculture as well as the long term effect of GMOs on human health and the environment.

On November 4 of last year, my colleague from Louis-Hébert introduced Bill C-309 on mandatory labelling. We learned a few weeks ago that Europe has gone ahead and decreed that from now on all products containing GMOs should be labelled as such. This is a first victory for consumers. This step taken in Europe should make it easier for us here.

We are not content with taking action only in the House, we, in the Bloc Quebecois, have started a petition on labelling, which so far has been signed by 44,000 to 45,000 people across Quebec.

My office prepared and mailed leaflets on this topic to my constituents. They were asked to answer two questions. The first one was “Do you believe the general public is properly informed about GMOs?” The second one was “Do you believe it is justified to demand that genetically modified foods be labelled?”

Here are a few of the comments my office has received so far. On the first question as to whether the public is properly informed about GMOs, here are some of the answers and general comments: “Not at all. Governments have no regard for the public”. Or “No, there is not enough outreach, especially regarding health impacts”. And again “No, people are just starting to realize how huge this problem is. Quality and health risks are only the tip of the iceberg”.

Another one says “No, we only receive very vague information, often by word of mouth”. And a last one “No, I heard about it for the first time in the fall of 1999 in my microbiology course, and I study animal health”. As you may suspect, the answer was no 99.9% of the time.

On the second question as to whether it is justified to demand that genetically modified foods be labelled, an overwhelming majority said yes. Again, here are their comments. “The right to know is fundamental. Labelling should be mandatory. It should be mandatory so we can make an informed decision”.

Here is another comment. “If we cannot stop companies from producing GMOs, we should at least know what products contain them”. Another citizen said “I am totally outraged to see that companies could force us to eat whatever they want to put in their products”.

Another comment says—and I have many, but I will not read them all, only a few more—that “Labelling should be mandatory, especially if our lives are at risk. There might be more cancer or other illnesses that destroy our very fragile cells”. Another citizen wrote “I would like to have the freedom to know what I put in my body”. A last comment states “We are given the list of ingredients that are contained in food products. It is quite normal that I should know also if they contain GMOs”.

People are very concerned about this issue and support the mandatory labelling of food products containing GMOs. They said so in a Léger & Léger poll published last month. According to the poll, 50% of Quebecers surveyed are concerned about GMOs, and three people out of four would prefer a tomato without GMOs, even at a higher price, to a tomato with GMOs that were 30% cheaper. A proportion of 68% of the Quebecers polled would prefer a tomato a little bruised or damaged without GMOs to a more beautiful and redder tomato containing GMOs.

As for the Canadian government, I cannot remain silent about a brochure that I consider to be misinformation on food and also on GMOs. This brochure, entitled “Food Safety and You”, which the federal government sent to many households during the week of March 27, talks about the benefits of GMOs, stating that they may reduce the need for chemicals in agriculture. It also states that they are as safe as foods already on the Canadian market.

How can the federal government say such a thing when we know that genetically modified foods are not tested and inspected differently from other food products? Researchers do not do a second assessment of GMOs, but simply read the research protocol provided by companies seeking approval for their products.

In the brochure, there is nothing about the fact that no studies have been conducted on the medium and long term impact of GMOs on health. We cannot just tell the people that genetically modified foods are good for them without answering legitimate questions about the possible risks of the GMOs for human health and the environment.

Furthermore, the federal government, through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, has awarded a contract for more than $300,000 to Telemedia Communications, in Toronto, to have Canadian Living and Coup de pouce magazines insert a special section in their June issue to reaffirm the security of GMOs.

While the federal government is financing advertising campaigns with taxpayers' money, Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency have no money to conduct real studies on the long and medium term impacts of GMOs.

Many questions remain unanswered. This new technology was introduced very quickly under pressure from a few herbicide and seed companies.

Therefore, it is important to be cautious and to hold a public debate on GMOs so that the public can be well informed about the issue.

If you do not know what a genetically modified organism looks like, you can get an idea just by looking at my colleagues on the other side. They are politically modified organisms.

[David Laflamme, April 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, the Quebec finals of the Bell Super Science Fair were held in Chicoutimi. Top honours were carried off by a 12th grader from Sherbrooke's École Montcalm.

David Laflamme won first prize for his life sciences experiment on the “art of neuromodulating”. In it he studied the process by which neurotransmitters release acetylcholine, low levels of which may cause Alzheimer's disease.

This win at the Super Science Fair takes him on to the Canada-Wide Science Fair in May, and then on to the international event, to be held in Grenoble in 2001.

This is not David Laflamme's first such success. He presented his research on the ageing process of the brain at the last congress of the Association des médecins de langue française du Canada.

I wish to convey to David heartiest congratulations from the people in the riding of Sherbrooke. There is no doubt that his passion—