Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-34. My remarks will focus on the following three areas.
First, I wish to immediately say that the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-34 for the following reasons: as we see it, this bill authorizing financial assistance to western producers is a form of subsidy in disguise. I will explain why.
Second, we believe that the government's timing in introducing Bill C-34 is nothing but a play for votes in western Canada, where the Canadian Alliance has a strong base.
Third, I will show that this government is inconsistent and that there is no link with Canada's transportation policy because the measures in this bill address western issues only.
I will, if I may, give a short background. A few minutes ago, the Minister of Transport said that there had been broad consultation and that he had worked closely with Justice Estey and reviewed the Kroeger report. However, there seems to be a real dichotomy between what this report says and the results we saw a few weeks ago.
First of all, on October 5, 1999, the Minister of Transport thanked Mr. Kroeger for his great effort in trying to solve the problem of grain handling in Western Canada. He also said that this report would be followed up with a study and that he was going to address the 12 to 15 recommendations contained in the report. After the report was tabled, three public information sessions were held. Finally, the federal government's policy was released a few weeks ago.
I will address one of the recommendations of this voluminous report. This report was submitted to the three ministers who announced the federal government's intentions a few weeks ago.
It was submitted to the Minister of Transport, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. At that time, the three of them said that they were going to take into consideration all of the recommendations made in the report in question.
I will read the first recommendation contained in the report's conclusion. It says:
The Estey report urges special measures be taken to revitalize some of the ports in the grain handling and transportation system; the Ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill, and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
The report in question is the one from October 1999.
The same three ministers turn up again on May 10, 2000—the same three tenors, namely the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Natural Resources responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food—to announce to us that the policy will apply to the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay and Churchill.
The St. Lawrence Seaway was forgotten, yet it is, as hon. members are aware, an important link for the economy of Quebec. How can the Minister of Transport come this morning to announce to us with great fanfare that he was acting on the Estey report, when one of its recommendations is not even included in the May 10, 2000 press release?
I wondered if there had been a mistake, if perhaps the three ministers had not read certain parts of the report. I like to point out the things the Liberals do. Often, by putting documentation together, we can see that things get lost.
On May 29,2000, the Minister of Transport introduced a bill to reform legislation on grain. Once again, the minister said he had consulted and acted on the Estey report and that this was all being done in collaboration with his colleagues. Here is the conclusion of the press release that explained in broad terms the content of Bill C-34, which we are debating today:
A memorandum of understanding between the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and the Minister responsible for the CWB will be in place by the time the legislation takes effect.
We are at second reading today.
The memorandum will provide for the phasing in of more competitive tendering by the CWB for logistical services for its grain shipments through the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay and Churchill.
Once again, the government has forgotten the first recommendation of the report, which said clearly they would be through the ports of Prince Rupert and Churchill and the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Do members know what that means? It means that once again the Liberals opposite are ignoring the existence of Quebec. The entire policy turns on the people in the west.
In the short term, for the entire economy of Quebec and the ports that operate along the seaway—Montreal, Quebec City, Baie-Comeau, Port-Cartier and Sept-Îles—this means major economic losses. In the short and medium terms, it means the government wants to eliminate the seaway and follow other avenues, so as once again to put Quebec at a disadvantage.
Today, we are considering Bill C-34, the grain bill. But all what this government has done with respect to transportation since 1997 is close control towers in small airports and hand back aging ports requiring major investments to municipalities, without throwing in any interesting subsidies.
This government promised to return ports to municipalities and other paramunicipal agencies, but the ports it is giving back are in terrible shape. With this policy, it is actually further reducing the effectiveness of these five ports, which underpin the economy of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
There is talk of savings and development. This decision even hurts Ontario, because the Great Lakes will now be bypassed. There are also ports on the Great Lakes.
What does this government want? The crisis now facing western producers is also related to the rules of international trade. We know that these rules are strict and that they do not allow any leeway for governments trying to provide support.
The Canadian government promised the WTO to reduce export subsidies and domestic measures and, at the same time, open up the market. What are they doing with Bill C-34? They are taking $175 million, sending this amount to help with grain transportation, and this becomes a subsidy in disguise designed to placate western producers who are mad at the federal government.
The federal government has always turned towards western Canada. If this government had used the normal means of intervention to help these people in crisis, the World Trade Organization would have said “You are not entitled to do so”. With Bill C-34, this government, which specializes in camouflage, managed to use a disguised subsidy of $175 million to help westerners.
What did that same government do when the Quebec pork producers were in crisis? Nothing. It hid behind the framework agreement between the federal minister of Agriculture and his provincial counterparts. What did the federal government do to help Quebec sheep producers with the scrapie situation? Nothing. What is it doing now to help the very many cranberry growers in my riding? Nothing, once again. On the other hand, it managed to find $175 million to help western producers.
When I hear this government talking about its national vision, its vision from east to west, I find that the vision of Bill C-34 starts at Manitoba and runs west to the Pacific, with the entire eastern part of the country having been left out.
As well, they are attacking the port infrastructures of Quebec by not even including in this bill the St. Lawrence Seaway, which directly links Ontario and Quebec with the United States and beyond. It does not take an advanced course in economics to understand that things do not operate east-west, but that what needs to be developed is north-south.
Once again, this government continues to repeat its historical errors. It has no national vision. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-34. It is a vote-seeking bill. There have been election rumours for the past few weeks. The Bloc Quebecois is dying to get out there against the federal Liberals. The Bloc Quebecois is eager to settle its accounts with them.
We saw this in the case of the Young Offenders Act with the Minister of Justice including standards in the legislation, once again in deference to the west. Today, with Bill C-34, we see the Minister of Transport is continuing the same practice in an effort to mollify the west. But Quebecers will not be taken in by the pre-election manoeuvring of the government opposite.
The Minister of Transport should reread the entire Estey report, especially the first recommendation. The Minister of Transport should also think nationally—one policy from east to west and not one for just four provinces.
His colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, should be made aware of the problems of Quebec producers, take his courage in hand and help them too—which he has not done.
I can understand the third member of the trio, obviously. He is one of the few Liberals from western Canada who is established in his riding and, in addition, he is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I understand he supports this and that he is happy to have the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food support Bill C-34.
All we have seen since the report is a sort of process in which this government is once again neglecting the east and forgetting Quebec.
I would also like to point out what this means for transportation. This week, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development came down quite hard on the current Minister of Transport. I am going to talk about the Minister of Transport's policy. I am no longer talking about the agricultural sector, about grain, or about ports, but about the airlines.
This minister does not even have the courage and leadership to sit down the two parties involved, Canadian International and Air Canada, so that they can try to harmonize the various collective agreements governing their employees. What do we have right now in airports all over Canada? Complete chaos, and the frustration can be seen in employees' eyes. Who is getting hurt? Consumers, the people using the airlines.
This shows that this government and this Minister of Transport bungle everything they touch. We know that the airports are in a mess right now. The St. Lawrence Seaway is being ignored. The government is introducing western-oriented policies. Eastern Canada and Quebec are being forgotten. It is high time that this Minister of Transport started paying attention to these issues and finding solutions.
In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-34 and I will again give the reasons why.
We feel that $175 million for western producers is a form of subsidy in disguise, a way to get around the rules of international trade. It is also nothing more than a play for western votes.
In addition, the bill completely ignores the reality of Quebec's economy, and the first recommendation in the Estey Report, by failing to address the issue of the St. Lawrence Seaway.