Paul Crête

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the agri-food sector is presently faced with an upheaval the like of which we have not seen in thirty years. During the States-General of the rural world and the Trois-Rivières Summit, Quebec took the lead and agreed on principles which will govern the agriculture of tomorrow. The challenges of globalization are enormous and Quebec committed itself to developing a competitive agricultural sector which would build on the social and economic strengths of the regions.

The future depends on the decentralization of powers towards regional decision-making units better in touch with reality. Unfortunately, shared jurisdiction in the area of agriculture and

very different interests in the main agricultural areas of Canada, is not really helping the initiatives of Quebec farmers.

In this context, Quebec sovereignty is the necessary tool which will allow Quebec farmers to stay in the game.

[International Workers Day, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to draw attention to the International Workers Day, also known as May Day, which will be celebrated on May 1.

To mark this event, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois met this morning, as he does every year, with the leaders of the three main Quebec unions to talk about the problems that workers presently face.

This year, Quebec bishops will be part of the rallies which will be held Sunday to denounce the growing poverty problems that our society is experiencing.

The Bloc Quebecois urges workers to come to these rallies to show their pride and remind society of their vital contribution. We also invite the unemployed to participate and thus denounce the lack of action of governments in the area of job creation.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today has a very evocative title: the Pearson International airport Agreements Act.

Pearson airport has become a symbol of all the old partisan practices and the more or less above-board lobbying that goes on in a parliamentary system when elected representatives do not have sufficient control.

It is also a test of the present Liberal governement's approach to such practices. I agree that they inherited a deal that had been "negotiated" by the Conservatives, but it seems that, although Prime Ministers have changed, their friends remain the same. On the list of lobbyists who were involved in this deal, we find as many friends or contributors on both the Liberal and what used to be the Conservative side.

The point I would like to make this morning is that we often try to rationalize the lack of development in the regions by pointing to a lack of initiative in these regions or similar arguments.

I would like to say that perhaps the real reason is that these regions are not part of the more or less legal, sometimes "shady" networks of lobbyists. As a joke, I said to one of my colleagues: I wish there was a bill on certain agreements concerning the development of eastern Quebec. This might give us some insight into why our projects, which are prepared by development agencies, local contractors and regional authorities acting in good faith, or even by citizens groups, are seldom successful in attacking the dollars they need.

In other words, spending $250,000 in my region has always seemed more complicated than spending $250,000 on the Pearson airport deal, where $250,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to what will be paid just to the lobbyists, for instance.

So what we have here is a double standard. In the case of Pearson airport, the big bucks network makes sure everyone around those who set up this deal gets their share.

We would have liked to see this bill specify exactly what form of compensation, if any, will be provided for a given part of the contract and how it will be awarded, so that there is an open process.

One might also ask how we got into this mess. What is it in our system that lets people who are not elected have more clout than those who are? When we look at the list of people involved in the Pearson deal, those who lobby the government for a decision, why do we see so few elected representatives and so many what I would call powers behind the throne?

I think we have a system that has lost control over the way it operates, and I heard the same comment from voters during the election campaign. It does't take a genius to see that, in our current federal political system, there is a lot of waste, a lot of money going down the drain. So why is this happening? Of course we should always allow for some margin of error in the way we do things, but there is no excuse for this kind of behaviour, and I think that the Liberal government which was elected on a promise of transparency will be judged on how it settles the Pearson question. As I see it, what is in this billfalls very wide of the mark and there is certainly a lack of transparency.

What the government proposes is a bill with a kind of fragmented authority, a bill so full of holes that all parties can get what they want out of it. Another reason why this kind of arrangement was tabled is the fact that the political parties which have formed of government in Canada since this country's inception were always financed, more or less openly, by people who do not vote. By this I mean companies, unions and other organizations which, in the final analysis, do not vote and thus do not give a mandate to our elected representatives. In this connection, I would like to mention the public financing bill in Quebec, which has caused a significant shift in the behaviour and authority of elected representatives and lobbyists.

In Quebec, and the same applies to the Bloc as far as party financing is concerned, the only lobbyists who can influence us are people who contributed to our fundraising campaign as citizens and individuals.

In the case of federal parties, and this applies to the current government in particular, funding is provided by these very same people who, merely by changing hats, become lobbyists. They sign on to lobby for a given company, thereby placing the government in a very difficult situation. It can hardly say no to someone who, more as a corporate citizen than as an individual, has made a major financial contribution.

Next week, we will likely proceed to debate a motion on the funding of political parties. I find it totally logical that this motion was introduced by the member for Richelieu and that it ties in with the debate on Pearson airport. I think the government should take a lesson from the opposition in the case of Pearson, take a good hard look at its motives and determine how, in future, it can avoid a recurrence of situations such as this.

Regarding the sub-amendment moved by the Reform Party, my initial impression was that it was a technical amendment. However, on further consideration, since it adds the words "in Canada", it reflects more accurately the Canadian reality.

Why has Ontario always benefitted more from economic development in Canada? Is it because there are more entrepreneurs or more leadership in this province? I do not believe this is the reason. I think it is a question of networks and of contacts people have with political parties. In this respect, the Reform Party's sub-amendment is interesting because it proves to us that, in Canada, some people are more equal than others.

We want the government to take this principle of equality to heart either by amending or withdrawing the bill respecting certain agreements concerning Pearson International airport. In its place, we would like the government to introduce a bill entitled an Act respecting the Pearson airport agreement. This bill would shed light once and for all on whether friends of the government benefitted from this agreement. It would also give us an indication of whether in future the Liberals intend to take a different course of action.

Considering that, during the election campaign, a $1,000, $2,000 or $3,000 a plate dinner was held-I am not sure exactly which it was-this could be viewed as a warning sign of the direction which the government intends to take. In my view, it is important that a clear signal now be sent out that, in Canada and in Quebec, it is possible to have development issues addressed without having to resort to parallel circuits. What matters should be the relevance of the project, not whether a company is an influential friend of the government.

In this respect, it is important that all Canadians be made fully aware of the situation and that this debate uncover the whole truth about this transaction. All aspects of the deal must be fully explored.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just a short comment on what the hon. member said in his introduction, in which he reproached us for not letting another member take the floor.

I simply wanted to say that, for the opposition day we requested on agriculture, we need all the time we are allowed to voice the concerns of Quebec and those of farmers across Canada, and we are prepared to consider the possibility of having the hon. member speak when we have finished. All members who expressed an interest in speaking in this debate, members from the rural ridings who want agriculture to have its rightful place in Canada and Quebec, should be able to speak,

and that is why we felt this was important, because the treatment of agriculture in Quebec has left much to be desired in the past.

Agriculture in Canada is to a large extent western agriculture, and we want to say there is an agricultural industry in Quebec as well, and that is why we want all our members who have something to say about their ridings and certain expectations they want to express on behalf of their constituents, to be able to do so. We want to ensure that the concerns of the agricultural industry, in Quebec and in Canada, get the attention they deserve, and that is why we want to ensure that the entire debate is used to discuss those concerns.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Will giving me the floor prevent a member who was supposed to speak from speaking on this point?

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Indeed, the originator of the motion is the member for Québec-Est. In the past, he worked for a former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Whelan, but he came to realize during this time, and probably because of his experiences, that Quebec had no future in Canada, particularly where agriculture was concerned. Moreover, you will recall that this Minister of Agriculture had the good fortune of being sprayed with milk by Quebec farmers because he could not grasp what they were trying to tell him. The only way they could get their message across to him was by spraying him in the face with milk.

On a more serious note, let them say what they will about sales and milk production figures of all other sectors. The fact of the matter is that rural communities are dying. The population of our villages has been declining for a number of years. When it has come to the point at which villages such as Saint-Paul-de-la-Croix in my riding have taken to advertising in the newspapers to attract families that may be willing to settle in a rural community, we know that we need to make some fundamental changes to the way we approach rural development and agriculture.

Right now in Eastern Quebec we can see dairy trucks go by, heading for Montreal, and that milk comes back in the form of processed cheese. That is the sort of thing we would like to be able to change so there could be a future in primary and secondary processing in our region. The fact that our communities are small does not mean that we do not have expertise in the various agricultural productions.

My riding has been the home of Canada's biggest milk producers for a long time.

Fresh lamb is another area. It should be noted that interestingly, 30 per cent of the fresh lamb consumed in Quebec is processed in our region.

Also, farmers in Eastern Quebec, and my riding in particular, have adapted successfully to changes in the agricultural industry. The UPA may be confident in the future, but this does not mean that all government's actions automatically have its blessing. Their confidence comes from knowing that with their skills and the ideas they have come up with, they will be able to ride out this time of fundamental change brought about by GATT.

A great deal of work was done in Quebec to prepare for the future and make sure agriculture had the place it deserved in Quebec in the 21st century. Take for example the "États généraux du monde rural" and the Trois-Rivières summit where a consensus was reached on the efforts required to ensure the prosperity of the Quebec agricultural industry for the future.

I hope that the government will take that into account in planning its next move and that it will make sure the interests of the Quebec agricultural community do not get lost in the sea of Canadian and Western interests. Care should be taken not to let the durum exports issue adversely affect advocacy for farmers in Eastern Canada, and Quebec in particular.

When the Bélanger-Campeau Commission held hearings in the Lower St. Lawrence region, the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was the Liberal Party representative on the commission at the time, had argued that, should Quebec become a sovereign state, we would lose any control we may have had on our milk quotas. Since then, current world events have caught up with the hon. member-who is now Minister of Foreign Affairs-and quotas will be less prominent. Belonging to the Canadian Federation may not be that beneficial for Quebec farm producers after all. A more profitable approach is to make sure we are able to sell our products abroad, and for that, we need programs to promote processing.

We must also learn from the past. In agriculture, we went from a period when many regions could be self-sufficient by processing and selling their products locally to a new era when, in the

name of productivity, natural resources are sent outside the producing regions, creating unemployment. Something can be done to bring processing back to the regions, thus enabling more people to live with dignity.

I would like to point out one of the abnormalities inherent in the Canadian system. In lamb production, Canada, under pressure from the United States, reviewed the way it treats sick animals. Before, especially in the case of pure-bred lambs, we used to slaughter all sick animals. We have now decided that moderately sick lambs would not be killed but quarantined. This can be appropriate for owners of very large herds like those in the West, for whom quarantining a small part of their herd is not a major problem.

However, in Quebec, where herds are much smaller, this type of action is inappropriate. In my riding, for example, it pushed a producer to the brink of bankruptcy. We had to intervene many times to make the bureaucracy understand the situation. Unfortunately, we have not yet managed to change the regulations, the new practice adopted under U.S. pressure.

That is one example where implementing a practice across Canada can harm the economy of one of Canada's regions.

The other point that I would like to bring to the attention of the House is support for exports. Much is being done to help people who are long established, but there is not much room for new exporters. For example, young people who would like to export top-quality maple syrup do not easily find the government program that could help them.

In agriculture, it is very complicated to find which program applies to which crop since agriculture has always been a shared federal-provincial jurisdiction; this does not make it easy for those who want to be involved in agriculture.

In another area, the federal government is acting contrary to the fine principles it has put forward, namely by cutting the funding for regional agricultural fairs. While they say they want to give regional agriculture a chance, this year they are cutting the budgets for the 55 regional agricultural fairs in Quebec by 15 per cent and next year they want to cut them out completely, which will eliminate these regional agricultural fairs that promote high-quality livestock.

I think that such an example proves the government's lack of leadership in agriculture. They just say the right words; what they do is in fact contrary to the decisions that should be made. Instead of encouraging agriculture, they are making drastic cuts that will hurt agriculture instead of helping it to develop.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today during the first day of debate in this House on agriculture. We will have to remember that the official opposition is responsible for this first day of the 35th Parliament devoted to the subject of agriculture.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the government member that, in final analysis, the energy that exists in the agricultural sector must come from its leadership.

However, it is well known that the problems do not come from farmers, they come from the inability of the government to defend them. It could not protect article XI and similarly, protectionism is disappearing. The only argument I was given at the Bélanger-Campeau Commission by the person who is now Minister of Foreign Affairs was the Canadian system will protect milk production in Quebec, but if you leave Canada you will lose this protection.

This argument is no longer appropriate, because we now are in a much larger market. Does the hon. member not agree that in the North American economy, in the Canadian economy, eastern and western agricultures have interests so different that trying to defend them simultaneously brings about important problems and situations almost impossible to reconcile? I will give an example. In lamb production there were rules to control disease. In my riding a sheep farmer had a problem because of a disease in his flock.

Previously, stricken animals were slaughtered and that was the end of the problem. Now, under pressure from the Americans, we have changed our procedure. We do not slaughter the animals anymore, because they have such large herds out West that the Americans insisted we change our procedure. In Quebec where the herds are small, we must abide by nation-wide guidelines which are not realistic for small flocks of pure bred sheep.

We thus place in opposition eastern and western farmers even though in this case it was not just to please western farmers, it was under pressure from the Americans, and this is a problem for Quebec.

I took this example to show that in the future the interests of Quebec farmers and those of Canadian farmers will be difficult to reconcile. Our interests are different and in the past we have often been on the losing end. I think that in the near future Quebec farmers are going to make a choice that will allow them to work out more concrete solutions in the larger economic market we now have.

[Social Program Reform, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm that the federal-provincial conference, already cancelled once, has been postponed once again, this time indefinitely, because of the continuing deadlock with British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec?

[Social Program Reform, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Profound differences remain between Ottawa and the provinces regarding the reform of our social programs. As you know, a federal-provincial conference on the subject was cancelled at the last minute because of objections raised by several provinces.

Furthermore, the minister promised to release a policy paper early next month, setting forth the government's choices and options. Does the minister intend to proceed according to schedule and release his action plan next week, as he promised?