House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

The House resumed consideration of the business of supply.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying prior to question period, members of the Conservative Party recognize that we can ill afford to lose any more of our farmers. With less than 7% of our land presently being used for agriculture in this country, Canadians are becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign imports.

The Liberal government may accuse me of exaggerating the severity of the situation; however, I do not think I am exaggerating Nova Scotia's increasing dependence upon imported agricultural goods. Whether these goods are imported from the U.S. or from another Canadian province, the fact still remains that it is importing large amounts of agricultural products, and this trend will continue so long as our youth stay away from agriculture.

As I have mentioned many times in the House, our farmers in Nova Scotia have had to endure three successive years of drought conditions. These hard weather conditions have significantly reduced yield, resulting in a tremendous increase in feed costs. A number of farmers have been forced to prematurely rid themselves of cattle, at a substantial loss. With the price of beef being so low, a farmer in Yarmouth told me that some beef producers have incurred such tremendous losses they will most likely be forced to exit the beef industry.

I would like to offer these farmers and many others like them throughout the country some ray of hope, but I find little in the government's estimates to do that. Even the Prime Minister's throne speech failed to address any of the major issues facing our farmers. In fact, farming barely received mention in the throne speech, which simply confirms what all Canadians know, that this government is not committed to helping Canadian farmers.

Our western neighbours are struggling tremendously, yet the federal government is not there to help. Unfortunately, our western friends are coming to grips with what Nova Scotian farmers have known for years, that this government simply is not committed to maintaining or enhancing our agricultural industry.

As I mentioned, we have had three successive years of drought conditions, yet the federal government has seen fit to introduce an aid package that is very difficult for our farmers to access. We had farmers experiencing hardship during the ice storm, yet the government did not see fit to provide them with any assistance.

Nova Scotian farmers are not immune to hard times, yet they tend to be overlooked by the government. I am telling the government that it can no longer ignore our Nova Scotian farmers. Farming is an important industry within Nova Scotia, as it is throughout the rest of the country, and I will continue to demand that our farmers be treated fairly by this government.

The previous Progressive Conservative government recognized the importance of agriculture to our Canadian economy. That is why in 1991 the government introduced the gross revenue insurance program, GRIP, and the net income stabilization account, NISA. These programs were designed to complement each other. Unfortunately, the Liberal government abolished GRIP and has failed miserably in replacing it with an effective, nationally responsive program.

For over two years our member of parliament from Brandon—Souris has been calling upon the minister of agriculture to create a long term safety net program for our farmers, yet his calls and suggestions have fallen upon deaf ears, as have those of our farmers who have been pleading for government assistance.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Speaker

I am sorry, but it seems the time has elapsed. We will now have five minutes of questions and answers.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's remarks. Although there was a lot of doom and gloom in his remarks, that really does not surprise me. We recognize and the minister has said that there is indeed a farm crisis in western Canada that we are trying to deal with. However, there are some positives in agriculture. I would like to know where the hon. member and his party stand in terms of where those positives are.

I have heard mixed remarks from his colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris, on the supply management industry. He goes on and on attacking the Canadian Wheat Board, which is an agency that maximizes returns to producers.

The hon. member will know that in his province there is a big supply management industry in terms of dairy and poultry, which are models of development for rural Canada. Where does he stand on those industries? Is he supportive of them?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Malpeque for his very important question.

The situation is that there are problems throughout the system. We recognize that certain sectors are doing well, but the problems still exist. We have serious problems that the government is not addressing.

As I mentioned earlier in my comments, 42% of our farm operators are over the age of 55. The average age of farmers in Nova Scotia is 52.2 years. There are no young people entering the industry. There is a reason. It is because of the policies of the government.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the member for West Nova for his intervention on this particular issue.

As the member knows, we have been working together on this side of the House to get those people who live in urban areas involved in the issue of agriculture and agri-food. The reality is that 80% of the population in the country live in urban areas and those consumers have very little knowledge of the difficulties, the challenges and the complexities that surround matters of agriculture, the family farm and so on.

Does the hon. member feel that it would be a useful exercise to engage the people of urban Canada in a very thoughtful, constructive way, so that ultimately they could participate fully in these agricultural issues, the family farm problem, and especially young people moving away from the farm? Does the member think that would be a good exercise? If we did something like that, would he and his party get behind the exercise?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Broadview—Greenwood for a very thoughtful question, one which deserves a serious answer.

The reality of Canada is that, yes, 80% of the people live in urban centres, which is a large part of our population. Some of the decisions coming from the government are based on votes and do not reflect the realities that exist. If that is the case, that is why the government is not taking hold of the problems that exist, dealing with the farm crisis, the east coast fisheries crisis and other issues. Those are some of the things that should be looked at.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:25 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the business of supply. In the Supplementary Estimates (A) the President of the Treasury Board has indicated that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada requires an additional $63,196,279 to continue its programs which began in this fiscal year. The Reform Party and our chief critic, the member for St. Albert, are opposed to this money being added to the spending of the agriculture department.

The questions that always go unanswered are: Why did the department not foresee what was happening? Why did it not plan better? Where has the money gone that it originally had? Was it simply wasted or was it shifted to some other area, resulting in additional funds being required?

In debating this appropriation of money we have to look at the overall operation of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The department's operations are of course directed by the minister in charge. The agriculture minister sets the tone, examines what is happening and determines how the money will be spent.

The performance of the Liberal government and the agriculture minister is on trial. When someone takes over a major department like agriculture and agri-food, that person has to demonstrate by action, not words or spin doctoring, that a good job is being done. When we see what is happening in regard to western Canadian agriculture in particular, we have to question very seriously the performance of this minister and, indirectly, the government itself, because the problems that are evident in the west are not being addressed and have not been addressed.

Over the last 20 years we have had successive governments which have failed to put in place a program of long duration to address the problems which we know come up continuously. The Progressive Conservatives certainly had opportunities through the eighties, with massive majorities, to put long term programs in place. Ad hoc programs have been shown time after time to be insufficient in taking care of the problems which farmers encounter.

The problems which agriculture is encountering are not of its own making. The agriculture sectors that are in trouble are the ones which are dependent on export markets. These farmers contribute gigantic sums, in the tens of billions of dollars, to the Canadian economy. As a result, when they are harmed by the actions of our competitors, namely, gigantic subsidization for cereal grains and oil seeds, our farmers are not on a level playing field. They cannot compete against these massive subsidies.

This is nothing new. This has been going on for some time. Successive governments have failed to put in place programs that will enable Canada to have a viable agriculture sector. This is a bit astounding. Maybe over the years governments have become complacent because there is always food at the grocery store. Anyone can go to the store to pick up food relatively cheaply. This complacency has done nothing for the agriculture sector in having a long term program to guarantee that the sector will remain viable.

There are many things the government could do. Certainly what comes immediately to mind is what the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool brought up. There are user fees of $138 million that would have been applied to farmers. The auditor general has questioned whether or not the farmers are getting value for that, whether they have any say about those user fees and whether the sub-departments that are charging those fees are accountable for how they use them.

Fuel taxes are a good example. The federal excise tax is four cents per litre and that is applied directly to the farmer. That is one case where we could quite easily lower his costs. The farmer's problem, as I mentioned, is that input costs have gone up drastically and net returns have gone down.

I have mentioned previously and in my question today in question period, when a natural disaster strikes western Canada as in the case of the flooded areas in southwest Manitoba and southeast Saskatchewan, there is no declaration of a natural disaster. We heard the defence minister tell us today that unless the premier of Manitoba and the premier Saskatchewan initiate a call for a natural disaster area, he will not do anything. The premiers and the defence minister had better get together and make that declaration for farmers. The chairman of the agriculture committee of this House is telling farmers that there is still a chance that a natural disaster area could be declared to get the help they need to recover from that disaster.

There are places besides the department itself where we could get the money. The government has to look carefully at how it is using the money it gets. It must bear in mind that agriculture, our food supply and the basic necessity of life which is food, should be the country's primary importance.

The government has subsidized our magazine industry to the tune of $150 million. Here again it is farmers versus magazine moguls, which is what I would call them. They are limited in number and have massive influence with the government. They are getting $150 million. It is a case of their merely not wanting to meet the competition from other magazine producers. In the case of the farmer, he is not getting the subsidy and he is up against competitors who are subsidized. In the case of the magazine industry, competitors in other countries are not getting subsidized so it is not the same issue. It is mispriorization in government spending in regard to agriculture and other sectors of the Canadian economy.

I saw an interesting little example in the National Gallery of Canada the other day, the famous “Voice of Fire”. That beautiful art piece was purchased for about $1.2 million and the gallery staff told me it is now worth $7.5 million. When hearing that, the question farmers ask is if it has gone up that much in value, why not sell it and use the money for some good priorities such as keeping a viable agriculture sector?

There was the infamous Winnipeg situation of $15,000 in St. Norbert for a display of dead rabbits hanging in the trees. That was funded by the government. The government is being asked for money for agriculture. Lots of money is being wasted and foolishly spent and it lets the agriculture sector sink.

I should not go on too much about the extra money. Other examples such as the movie Bubbles Galore have come up. The coast guard and Corrections Canada spent $6,000 on a party on the east coast. The ships with the helicopters on them probably cost about $30,000 an hour to run. It was probably $200,000 or $300,000 no doubt for that little trip.

The $130 billion budget for the federal government's operations is a pretty big figure. With that amount the government knew it was getting and would be able to spend, it should have simply planned for that spending and used it properly. It should not be coming back to the taxpayer time after time to get more money.

The last thing I will mention regarding wasted money is the figure of around $200 million on the famous former Bill C-68 on gun control, the Firearms Act. What a tremendous waste of money. It is evident to virtually every Canadian.

We should look at what the agriculture minister and chairman of the agriculture committee are saying and doing in regard to the agriculture crisis that is happening in western Canada. We know what they are saying to the people of southwest Manitoba and southeast Saskatchewan in the flood area. Let us look at what else they are saying.

The agriculture minister was talking about farmers who are in trouble and possibly going bankrupt. One of the most famous statements he made rates right up there along with Mr. Trudeau's “Why should I sell your wheat?” The minister said, “I have been there, I have done it and it is now time for tough love”. He continued, “We are sorry but that bottom 30% of farmers who cannot make it will just have to go and do something else and we will continue on with the remaining 60%”.

That seems to be the vision of the government regarding agriculture. Some of the policies the government brings out encourage that kind of activity.

One of the best examples is the Canadian Wheat Board. A lot of people believe that the Canadian Wheat Board will keep the small farmers around. In the timeframe that the Canadian Wheat Board has been going, since the 1940s, we have lost tens of thousands of farmers, and the small farmers are disappearing.

The reason is that the wheat board does not have the ability to provide independent marketing for the individual farmers who could by looking at their own marketing maximize their prices. The wheat board wants to tell everybody it will do all the marketing and get a price which will be shared among every other farmer. That has not worked.

I propose that the Canadian Wheat Board assets be sold off. They should be sold off to a consortium named the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and the Agricore. That would become their marketing arm, two organizations that are set up to pool the returns for all farmers and would voluntarily go in with them. The farmers who did not want to be part of that organization would end up marketing on their own.

We have the solution for marketing grain on the prairies. This would actually add income for a lot of farmers. Those who would be hurt by not having pooling and not having somebody to do their marketing for them, would have farmer owned co-operatives, namely Agricore and the marketing ability of the wheat board to do that. It is pretty clear there are things which could be done.

I would like to talk for a minute about a couple of farmers who are telling the government what is necessary. One of them mentions the Canadian Wheat Board and marketing freedom, but they also get into other areas such as transportation.

One farmer said “I have been a producer representative on the old senior grain transportation committee that existed”. He went on to say that what it really comes down to with the current regime is that it is based on a command structure. We could say that about the wheat board as well, because the wheat board is set up by the House as a command structure where one has the sole right to sell wheat and barley for export. However, if one wants to try and do it by oneself, the wheat board says “Sell it to us and we will add some costs and return what is left over”. The command structure there again is not working.

The farmer went on to say that the transportation system runs on layers of regulations and formulas. He said that the irony is that over the years it was the farmers who asked for that. We see now that in fact a command structure does not work. It does not work in agriculture and it does not work in the case of transportation.

There is a lot of supply management in Manitoba where I come from. We are glad to have it. That is different from the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is not supply management. There has been a lot of deception by the government over the years that the Canadian Wheat Board is supply management. That is absolutely not the case.

The supply managed sector operates under legislation and the cost of production is included in a formula on which it prices its product. That is a good thing. I support that supply management is a good sector for agriculture. Supply management does not seem to be applicable to the whole agriculture sector.

The hog producers have said that they do not want to go back to supply management because they are export dependent. As long as we force agriculture just to be in the domestic market, we can say that if we do not want to export, let us have supply management in the whole agriculture sector and we will pay those farmers who are able to be in that enough to keep going. But what we see is that the country makes tens of billions of dollars in the non-supply managed sector. That is new money coming in from outside the country.

Why the government can stand here and not support western Canada's farmers and also those in Ontario who export grains and earn the country tens of billions of dollars is beyond me. In the planning of the government and the agriculture minister, one would think the importance of these export sectors and what they contribute to the country would be recognized.

One other farmer saw fit to talk to us about farming on the question of whether or not this government could afford to help agriculture and maintain a viable sector. He commented that “The finance minister is projecting a $90 billion surplus in five years. I may say this government can find money for support for those who are under siege”. He used the example of East Timor. He went on to say:

But it is time to recognize the farm industry at home here is under siege as well. Because farming is a renewable resource every year employing people directly and indirectly by the thousands, the government must come to recognize that those dependent on the farming industry are under siege as well. What is being offered so far to combat the record foreign subsidies through AIDA is at best insignificant. The farmers and the business people both directly and indirectly have demonstrated, sent petitions, made trips to Ottawa, staged rallies and have given presentations by the dozens in the months that followed seeding and the harvest in 1999, all in an attempt to get Ottawa to recognize the farm crisis in Canada.

There is no point in the government going around talking and asking everyone what should be done. The facts are on the line. The government has been told what is going on. Number one, the low net margin in the west for the export crops and in Ontario have to be addressed. The net margin has to be brought up.

The lack of a long term program necessitates a massive infusion of cash into Manitoba and Saskatchewan in particular. That infusion has been identified by the premiers of both those provinces to the federal government as being in the neighbourhood of $1.3 billion. It is time the government rolled up its sleeves and gave us the viable agriculture sector that is so important to our national interest.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Broadview—Greenwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the remarks of the member from the newly named riding of Hilstrom—Interlake. I am a member from downtown Toronto and not a rural member.

I am not fully aware of the complexities surrounding the issue of agriculture and agri-food, but earlier this week I had the privilege of speaking at the Canadian Federation of Agriculture summit. One fact that came out at that summit was the need to debate mobilization and getting more focused on the problems and challenges surrounding rural issues. We must start with a new beginning and engage a larger number of consumers and city residents.

Because the member for Selkirk—Interlake is very sensitive about government resources, I would like to ask him if he would support the notion of the Government of Canada and Agriculture Canada investing some dollars in mobilizing city residents to become more engaged and more involved in rural agricultural issues.

He seems to be very concerned about taxpayer money being spent on arts, culture, et cetera. I personally believe that a lot of money should be spent on mobilizing city representatives because we represent 80% of the votes in the House. Perhaps the member could speak on behalf of his party and indicate whether they would support such a campaign.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, certainly I support a campaign along those lines but we would have to look at the details. The Leader of the Opposition and I met with the ex-premier of Manitoba this summer, along with the Rural Disaster Coalition people. We in fact called for the very same thing.

The consumers of Toronto are very important to agriculture in not only the west but all areas of agriculture because they consume and pay for food. They also vote to put MPs into the House to represent them. The interest of consumers is served by keeping a viable agriculture sector and reasonably priced food. As a result I support that.

The last comment I would make gets back to the performance of the agriculture minister. The government and the agriculture department have to be very careful about putting out press releases with regard to what is happening by way of support. He mentioned again today that farmers received $1.1 billion. He did not say this today but he has said that provincial governments put in their part, bringing the figure up to $2 billion.

Consumers in Toronto think that farmers have obtained $2 billion. They have not. They have a portion of it but they are still to get it all. We are in agreement that consumers are important.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Gerald Keddy Progressive Conservative South Shore, NS

Mr. Speaker, I too listened intently to the member for Selkirk—Interlake. I think he wasted some of his energy at the beginning. Typical of partisan politics, he decided to take a shot at the Tories so I will take a little one at the Reform.

Western Canada was very well represented under the Tories. Agriculture was at the top of the agenda, not at the bottom of it. We had people like Don Mazankowski, Harvie Andre, Joe Clark and a number of others who were cabinet ministers, prime ministers and deputy prime ministers sitting at the table. They understood and represented the issue of agriculture.

The minister spoke about wheat and grain. Certainly they are issues but there is a greater one which I would like the member to comment on, and that is the desperate failure of the government.

Our grain farmers are supported by something like 65 cents to 75 cents per bushel of wheat. The United States supports its grain farmers by approximately $1.60 to $1.80. The numbers change constantly. The European Union supports its farmers by $2.30 to $2.40 per bushel of wheat. This is one of the major underlying problems facing us.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the member's question raises the point that a united alternative would certainly help us put forward the position that he purports to be putting forward right now.

The member termed my remarks as slamming the PCs. That was not my point at all. The history of agriculture policy and programs over the past 20 years the PCs and the Liberals have been in power has not resulted in the long term program which everybody is identifying needs to be in place. They are talking about it again today. If this is not done in another five or ten years, the MPs who follow us to this place will be talking about the same thing. This is my criticism of past governments.

The lack of subsidy in Canada for farmers, not all farmers but just those who are being hurt by trade distorting subsidies of other countries through no fault of their own, is the issue that has to be addressed today.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I would love to get into an extended debate with the member on the Canadian Wheat Board but we really do not have the time.

No one on the government side is saying that the Canadian Wheat Board is supply management. We are saying that the Canadian Wheat Board is orderly marketing, maximizing the returns that are in that market. Instead of confusing the facts the member should have clearly said that the government has put in place an elected board of directors so that the farmers on the board could be masters of their own destiny.

I am surprised and disappointed at the member for Selkirk—Interlake. He used the tactics of divisiveness in his remarks by talking about some of the grants to culture and so on as if they were not needed as well. They are needed in that area. I have seen this type of tactic being used previously by a former Reform Party member, the present Saskatchewan party leader. He used the argument of east versus west as to what one was getting and the other was not.

We do have a problem. The minister has very clearly said that there is a farm crisis. We have outlined the problem with subsidies in the European Economic Community and in the United States. We tabled a position at the WTO for those countries to bring down the subsidies. Yes, we have to do more.

The member said additional funds were needed for the farm sector. I agree that additional funds are needed. Could he tell us how much in additional funding is needed from his perspective? How should it be paid out so that it gets to the farm community quickly and helps the family farm? Let us put the facts on the table. What are you really saying?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I remind all hon. members to address each other through the Chair.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Reform

Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, the facts are on the table. The premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have asked for an immediate $1.3 billion. They have asked for a natural disaster declaration for the flooded regions of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. That money should go out to the provinces right now.

With regard to east versus west, that is not true. I put forward a motion in the standing committee on agriculture asking for a tour of Ontario so we could talk directly with the farmers there. It was cancelled by Liberal members of the committee; we will not be going to Ontario. My colleagues in the Reform Party and I will be required to do it by ourselves and report back to parliament on what farmers in Ontario are saying.

My last comment is with regard to maximizing returns of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have no idea whether or not it maximizes returns. That simply comes from the Kraft report. The wheat board gave him some statistics and he said that it looked like it was doing a great job.

There is only one true vote in an economic situation, and that is the vote of the client, the farmer who says he is doing better because of the wheat board and will deal through it, or he is doing better with another company and will deal through it. The choice of the farmer is the important issue.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on supply, because we should in this period be looking at the government's approach to management.

We should be talking about agriculture today. We want to talk about it, but the government is turning its attention elsewhere, as is its habit, instead of dealing with the real problems confronting it daily. Since 1993, the government has done everything except look after the problems put to it.

Today the government is disturbing this allotted day on agriculture with the introduction, as a total surprise and in a sneaky and unusual way, of a bill that has nothing at all to do with economic difficulties, nothing to do with the way this country is being governed, but that instead pits the House of Commons of Canada against the National Assembly of Quebec.

Hon. members will understand that I, like my Conservative colleague who made the motion, cannot help but address that issue in the context of this debate.

Generally, the way the House of Commons operates is that the House leaders of all parties reach agreement in a civilized and correct manner, respectful of the rights of each, of the standing orders, of tradition, habits and parliamentary good faith. It is our habit here to reach agreement and to ensure that the business is properly organized. We have some idea of what is coming and the government has some idea of the kind of fight, the kind of opposition it will get from us on each bill. There is nothing really secret in all of this, with the exception of a few surprises like the one we had this week about the vote, but nothing more than that.

Things are clear and the business of the House is based on mutual respect, confidence, honesty and clarity. That is how things are generally done in this House.

In the past few days, however, based on certain things leaked to the press, we were expecting the government to introduce a bill that, more than ever before, places the House of Commons and the members of this House in the position of having to make decisions that will restrict the powers of Quebec's national assembly.

Not only is this government not content with ignoring the constitutional responsibilities of each level of government but now, when it comes to something that has never been challenged by anyone, that the history books accept as a given—Quebec's right to decide its own future—the government has decided to get involved.

Oddly enough, the entire process has been changed for the introduction of this bill. Gone were any notice, clarity, trust or honesty. The whole thing was done during the night. The night was what it was, and I challenge the members opposite to say otherwise.

Yesterday evening, after the dinner hour, I myself checked with the government and the House whether it was indeed true that a fast one would not again be pulled on Quebec, whether a bill that might limit the rights of the national assembly would not be introduced. The answer yesterday evening at 7 p.m. was “Never, there is no question of it”.

When I give someone my word, they can believe it, and I expect to be able to do likewise. I have always thought that honesty and frankness took precedence over any parliamentary strategies.

On a certain night in November of 1981, a plot was hatched behind Quebec's back, in the kitchens of the Chateau Laurier here in Ottawa, to patriate the constitution. That was what happened. It has been described as the “night of the long knives”. On many occasions, the present Prime Minister has claimed never to have had anything to do with the “night of the long knives” and with what the history books will call the “night of the long knives” with respect to Quebec.

Last night, between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., there was a “night of the long knives”.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Some hon. members

This is terrible.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Everything changed. That was the end of parliamentary trust, the end of respect among individuals, the end of respect for the word given. The case of Quebec was settled the way things usually are, here in Ottawa. The deed was done during the night.

To better understand such an inappropriate—to use a parliamentary expression—process, let me quote an editorial published on Wednesday, November 22, 1972, in the daily Montréal Matin . The journalist was referring to the current Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The interview was given to CTV, on November 19, 1972. A copy of the transcript was available. The journalist, Clément Brown, quoted the Prime Minister talking about the parc de la Mauricie. I would appreciate it if members opposite would listen. I would like all Quebecers to hear it, because it will be a sad reminder of who we are talking here. The editorial quoted the current Prime Minister as saying “I used that park to break the back of the Quebec government and, believe me, I am proud of that”.

These are the words of the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, now the Prime Minister and member for Shawinigan.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

An hon. member

What a sinister individual.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

The difference between today and 1982, when this same Prime Minister was the enforcer of the previous Liberal government to unilaterally patriate the constitution, is that, at the time, Quebec was represented by 74 members of the Liberal Party of Canada in this House. Indeed, Quebec was represented by one Conservative and 74 members of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau had justified Quebec's support for the patriation of the Cthey are going to constitution by saying that the duly elected representatives of Quebec agreed with him. He could therefore proceed. And we were to think that Quebec had been well treated and well served.

History has judged the Prime Minister of the time and the current Prime Minister. Since 1982 in Quebec, no premier— federalist or sovereignist—has dared put his signature to the constitution, which no one in Quebec accepts.

I have news for the current Prime Minister and the government in place: there will never be another 1982.

Never again will the majority of the members representing Quebecers in this House support what this government is up to. Never again will the members representing the majority of the ridings in Quebec, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, people who have something in their heart, allow the government to try to take away from the national assembly even a single ounce of responsibility, a single ounce of power to determine the future of the people of Quebec.

I would give the government notice that there are other opposition parties in this House. I can hardly wait to see how the Conservative Party members from Quebec, who have some respect for the right of the people of Quebec to decide their future—for instance, the member for Chicoutimi, in the sovereignist region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean—will vote on this bill. I can hardly wait to see how the Conservatives will vote. I believe they will not stoop to the same level as the Government of Canada.

We can hardly wait, we the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the people of Quebec, to see how the Liberal members from Quebec representing Quebec ridings in the House of Commons are going to behave.

If she had to choose between Quebec and a limousine, is the President of the Treasury Board going to choose the limousine? Is the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport going to opt for satisfying his craving for a limo instead of for Quebec? We shall see.

Which is the Minister of Finance, a man who is constantly letting it be seen that he has a sort of sympathy for the people of Quebec, going to choose: the race for leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada or Quebec? We shall see.

What about the newly promoted Minister of Revenue, in his portfolio for only a few months, another with a limousine, which is he going to choose, the citizens of Outremont in Quebec or his limo? We shall soon see.

What we are seeing today is that the chickens are coming home to roost. In 1982—and hon. members would be wise to listen, for it may improve their knowledge of the reality of Quebec—this Prime Minister committed an extremely serious error in political strategy. All of his government knows this.

Since 1982, the federal government has been dragging along, like a ball and chain, a constitution that has never been accepted by one whole founding people, by one whole province, one of the most important provinces, one that was there from the beginnings of Canada, that was the place where European life in North America began. That province is part of the constitution of Canada solely by obligation; we never signed it. This error committed by the Prime Minister is what we want to correct today.

In 1981, there was 40% support for Quebec sovereignty. Then came the patriation of the constitution, the fruit of the labours of this wonderful Liberal government. In 1995, support went up to 49.6%. I remember having discussed this with eminent colleagues just before the 1995 referendum. Do you know what they told us? “The polls are giving you 35%; and so that is that, sovereignists, that is the last we will hear of you”. If my memory serves me, we got 49.6%.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

An hon. member

49.4%

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Sorry, 49.4%. The result of the constitutional efforts of the Prime Minister is that in Quebec more and more Quebecers have understood that their future lies in sovereignty and not in this country.

The government wants to settle things for good. Since the sovereignists are democratically creating a country for themselves because of the repeated constitutional mistakes of this government and this Prime Minister, the government is going to see to it that this is no longer possible.

On the pretext of clarity, the great minister of constitutional affairs, the great implementer of the Prime Minister's handiwork, wants to clarify Quebec's right to self-determination. He wants to clarify the majority. On these pretexts, they are setting up barriers likely to make it impossible, to all intents and purposes, by setting all sorts of undefined considerations. They are hanging swords of Damocles over the head of Quebec.

The feeling is that the federal government wants to make sure Quebec cannot democratically overcome all these obstacles. This is where we are at. Because 1982 was a mistake, because 1982 was an injustice, because Quebecers want to run their own country, those on the other side want to stop them. We will not let that happen. We give them notice of that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Godfrey Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in response to the proposed bill, the leader of the opposition made a three-part proposal to the Quebec national assembly and I would like to put a question to the hon. member in this regard.

The three parts of his proposal are as follows. The first part was that it was up to the Quebec national assembly to define the question and the conditions of the referendum. The second was that the leader of the opposition gave his support to the principle of 50% plus one. The third was that the whole matter should be in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Does the hon. member agree with this proposal?

SupplyGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, if the contents of the bill we are debating were so clear, so good and so beneficial for Quebec, why did they do this during the night? Why, until now, has it been withheld from all the newspapers, MPs and Quebec? Why, if it is so clear and so good?

We know the government. It has a habit of flaunting its bills everywhere and telling people how wonderfully it is looking after Canada. Members opposite are not shy. But now we have this bill which nobody knew anything about. Without any advance warning, it was sprung on us.

The fact of the matter is that this bill poses an indescribable threat to Quebec. The government will have to submit the referendum question to all of Canada's provinces and territories. Only after all these opinions are in will the federal government decide whether or not the question is clear.

Let there be no mistake, responsibility for the clarity of the question rests with Quebec.