Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington, and I must even admit that I was touched by his comments. I was touched when he talked about his days as a student in London with two former colleagues, one a Jew and the other a Biafran.

However, he digressed quite a bit from the NDP motion calling on the government to intensify and accelerate efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Kosovo—if we do not want, at this point, to talk about a war—and to involve Russia.

I want to ask the hon. member if he personally intervened in the Liberal caucus. If so, what proposal did he make to bring the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs—who, incidentally, is leaving this evening to meet his Russian counterpart—to find a diplomatic solution? What personal action did the hon. member take to convince his government to try to find a diplomatic solution?

We have lost a great deal of our ability to act as peacekeepers, because in this union with NATO, Canada is acting just like the United States and the other countries by sending aircraft that are not there to maintain peace but to strike and destroy.

Did the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington act in a positive way within his caucus?

[National Agricultural Relief Coordination Act, April 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-387, at the request of my colleague for Louis-Hébert.

The purpose of this bill is to establish a national committee to administer government programs relating to disasters, or in other words any agricultural losses created by weather or pests.

The intention of my colleague for Brandon—Souris is praiseworthy and understandable, since it reflects the experiences of the farmers of his province as a result of natural catastrophes. As well, the Canadian west has suffered greatly from application of the agricultural income disaster assistance program, commonly called AIDA, which was recently introduced to compensate farmers who experienced drastic drops in income in 1998.

It is therefore obvious that our colleague's bill is a cry of alarm triggered by the government's inefficiency. For a number of farmers, it is a real tragedy to see a new growing season approaching when they are already deep in debt and now have to lay out sizeable amounts for fertilizers and seed.

No one in this House with any familiarity with agriculture is insensitive to the crises experienced by farmers who have unfortunately not yet received any compensation. The complexity of the AIDA program, based in part on the farmers' income tax returns, ends up doing more harm than good, in the short term.

Will the Bloc Quebecois be moved by this sad state of affairs to support the bill introduced by the member for Brandon—Souris? No, because we do not think that the solutions put forward in this bill will help Quebec farmers, and our reasons are twofold.

First, there is the income security aspect. Quebec has its own program, which differs from that of Canada's other provinces, and it is not about to switch, because it wants to hang on to its autonomy in this area.

We have worked to improve our income security system. We are continuing to do so in accordance with our own needs and model. During our farm crisis, we did not wait for the federal government to take action, particularly when hog farmers were having trouble last fall. We were proactive and advanced the funds required to save Quebec's hog industry.

For us, the AIDA program ended up being an account to account reimbursement between the federal and provincial governments. Rather than introducing another bill, a look should perhaps be taken at what Quebec has done and its lead followed.

We have some experience of the disaster program. The flooding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region and the ice storm are still very unpleasant memories, and compensation is still not complete. The bill introduced by the member for Brandon—Souris offers no tangible solution to the problems people are experiencing.

One of the major problems is that the bill does not make it sufficiently clear who qualifies for compensation, and who is a full time and who a part time farmer. Through experience, Quebec has acquired expertise in acting quickly and effectively in disasters and does not want a slow acting federal committee to slow down its response time. It must remain a prerogative of the provincial government, within the framework of a partnership.

Quebec has no interest in supporting this bill, because it does not see the relevance of a committee comprised, unfortunately, primarily of the representatives of industry. It would mean that Quebec would be a minority member of the committee, whereas now it is totally autonomous.

We might ask ourselves why a national committee would come to the aid of farmers in the event of a catastrophe in addition to managing income security programs. Finally, the committee members would be appointed by the agriculture minister—another danger—directly or indirectly on the basis of choices made by the representative bodies. We oppose this sort of practice.

My eminent colleague from Brandon—Souris mentions in his statement, and I quote “In providing aid to victims, the accent must be on consistency. A lack of consistency in assistance programs for farmers can only create division among the farmers of this great country”.

Here again, we do not share his opinion. There must be clear and uniform rules in the application of legislation on catastrophes, and fairness. There is no consistency in agriculture. The value of land varies as does the value of the different crops. However, that the rules of the game must be the same for all, I agree with the member, who is skeptical of the scope of the publicity that often follows natural catastrophes.

In conclusion, we realize farm producers face problems, which must be resolved. And in this regard, the member for Brandon—Souris has shown his sensitivity towards farmers.

It is also true that, as pointed out by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Bob Friesen, “the farming community no longer has confidence in federal-provincial negotiations. To restore its confidence in the debate on the protection of farm income, there must be more honest and open relations between the industry and the government”.

For the Bloc Quebecois, the solutions proposed in Bill C-387 are not the most appropriate ones, since they would result in Quebec, and its farm producers, losing ground on the long road to autonomy and income security.

This reminds me of the scholarships that allow our students to pursue a post-secondary and university education. Quebec developed a system that is the envy of the other Canadian provinces. The federal government has found a way, in the context of the new millennium, to try to torpedo a program that works very well in Quebec.

When it comes to income security, three provinces have well defined rules in the event of a major disaster: Alberta, Ontario and Quebec. Quebec is ahead of the other provinces regarding this issue, because the Quebec government believes in income security for its farmers.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris might consider putting pressure in that regard on the Government of Manitoba.

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to condemn an injustice with respect to the former BC Mine workers of Black Lake.

When the BC asbestos mine was closed, on November 1, 1997, 300 workers lost their jobs. Two thirds of them were over 52 years of age.

The Minister of Human Resources Development reacted very timidly to support Quebec asbestos miners with only $4 million, whereas the same minister finds considerable amounts for the miners from Cape Breton in Nova Scotia.

On behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of National Defence answered this to the question I asked on this issue on March 19, 1999:

In this case a workforce adjustment package of $111 million will be provided to workers with fair severance and early retirement packages.

To the generous $111 million compensation package I just mentioned, $148 million will be added by two other departments, apparently to accelerate Cape Breton's economic expansion.

I condemn this double standard. The people in Black Lake feel the Minister of Human Resources Development is treating them unfairly. The Thetford Mines region feels unfairly treated by the Liberal government of Canada. Quebec is not getting its fair share.

To the $111 million have been added $68 million from economic development and $80 million from the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, for a total of $259 million to the miners of Nova Scotia, while hardly $4 million has been provided for the people of Black Lake, in Quebec.

That is the fairness of this Liberal government. Four million dollars for Quebec, and $259 million for Nova Scotia.

I urge the Minister of Human Resources Development to correct this injustice by reopening the file on the BC Mine workers. Everyone in Canada must be fairly treated. Why $259 million for coal miners in Nova Scotia and only $4 million for asbestos workers at the BC Mine in Black Lake? There is the injustice.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, in response to a question from the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, said earlier that the surplus from the employment insurance fund, which exceeds $20 billion, belongs to everyone, and not only to millionaires. If this money belongs to everyone, a good share of the $20 billion should be given back to the BC Mine workers. That is—

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, after question period, many questions were raised on the opposition side, mainly by the Bloc Quebecois and the Progressive Conservative Party. We are concerned, and rightly so, that the national defence minister may have already committed ground troops.

My question to the hon. member for Laurentides is this: could the government act in secret and deploy troops in Kosovo without consulting parliament and without a vote in the House?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, despite the early hour, I feel compelled to take part in this debate initiated by the Prime Minister and his government, the Liberal government, if only out of respect for my constituents, particularly the hundreds that I met during the Easter break, who shared with me their thoughts and fears, asked me what my position was, of course, and urged me to make representations.

Is Canadian participation justified? Are the air strikes justified? Should we become involved on the ground? Members will agree with me that participation in an armed conflict always leads to pain. We know only the date and time a conflict has begun.

Today marks the 21st day of NATO air strikes in Yugoslavia. Certain NATO country representatives thought, perhaps understandably, that at most three, four or five days of air strikes would be enough to persuade the Serb president to call off his forces. After 21 days, not a single member of this House can predict the outcome of the conflict. All we know is when the air strikes began.

These air strikes were all but demanded by the 19 NATO countries, because what is happening to the Kosovars is a human tragedy that no one on this planet can accept. However, as my colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, put it so well a few moments ago, there are two sides to everything.

A while ago a commentator on the public broadcasting corporation said “In an armed conflict the first victim is truth”. After hearing reports on the public network, on CNN and from independent reporters, we have to admit that the Kosovars are very close to being the victims of a genocide.

Here are a few events that could justify air strikes. Entire families were locked in their homes, which were then set on fire. Children screamed and cried before dying. Mass rapes are taking place in unprecedented numbers. This is still going on, on the eve of the year 2000. People are being killed for the sheer pleasure of killing, often in the presence of loved ones, women and children. They steal. They humiliate. They deliberately separate families just to harm them.

The 19 NATO countries want to bring Slobodan Milosevic to his knees, and rightly so. No words are strong enough to describe this man, but few could be used in this House.

As one of the 19 NATO countries, Canada must show solidarity; it had to take part in this action, however limited it was. The Minister of National Defence deployed 12 F-18 aircraft, which are stationed in Italy.

Of course 12 aircraft might represent only a 1 or 2% contribution at most. However symbolic the contribution, the fact that we are standing by the other 18 NATO countries is witness to our will to condemn a tyrant such as Milosevic.

It is said that there are 650,000 refugees outside Kosovo and that 800,000 Kosovars are more or less prisoners inside their own country. The Bloc Quebecois, like all the other parties in the House, supports the air strikes ordered by the Liberal government. However if ever ground troops need to be sent in, let us hope it will be to maintain, safeguard or restore peace rather than to engage in ground strikes, or military actions, involving combat troops in the true sense of the word, as in Vietnam.

I hope, therefore, that Canadians will not be sent to wage war, but rather to keep the peace.

I also fault the Prime Minister and his government for their systematic refusal to allow the 301 parliamentarians in this House to voice their opinion through a vote.

I cannot understand the dogged refusal of the Prime Minister, who systematically, maliciously even, refuses to allow each of the members, who represent a total of 30 million canadiansCanadians, to rise and say “I agree” or “I disagree”. Some would probably rather stay in their offices so as not to have to state their position. He would win such a vote.

We in the Bloc Quebecois, however, take our politics more seriously than the Prime Minister who, in 1991, had his mind changed in this House by the former leader of the Liberal Party, John Turner, in the space of 36 minutes. Yesterday in the House all party leaders spoke on this matter.

To conclude, I simply want to make a few recommendations to the Prime Minister, and to his Minister of National Defence in particular.

Nine days ago, here in the parliamentary precinct, they gave a news conference in which they jumped the gun on the NATO agreement by stating that serious consideration was being given to the possibility of intervention on the ground.

The Minister of Defence needs to show solidarity but he ought not to be stealing NATO's thunder by courting the media. He must be in solidarity with NATO. As for the Prime Minister, he needs to play his cards properly, not to ensure that he is re-elected, but to properly represent the people, properly represent Canadians, and Quebeckers in particular.

In closing, I call upon Serbian President Milosevic to immediately give up on his obstinacy and to lay down his arms. It is impossible for him to win, so the sooner he admits that he is wrong, the better it will be for his people and the better it will be for the entire planet. planet.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Portneuf has painted a very clear picture of the situation in Serbia and Kosovo for us. However, he reminded us that the Liberal government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, will unfortunately deny this House the possibility to vote at the end of this long debate, which started at 3 p.m. yesterday and will be than 10 hours long by the time it is over.

The five parties in the House support air strikes and the actions taken by the Canadian government. Could the hon. member for Portneuf risk an explanation of that situation? Could he explain why the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence would categorically refuse the hon. members who represent all Canadians an opportunity to vote on the Canadian involvement in the conflict?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like a quorum call please.

[Black Lake Bc Mine, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on January 28, the federal government announced that it was making a lump sum payment of $111 million for employees affected by the decision to scale back operations at the Phalen mine in Cape Breton. This plan included an early retirement program, severance pay, and a training allowance.

Why does the Minister of Human Resources Development not introduce a similar program for former employees of the BC mine in Black Lake, who have had to settle for the minister's rhetoric since the mine was closed?

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 18th, 1999]

With respect to the Thetford Mines regional industrial development fund incorporated: ( a ) on what date the fund was created; ( b ) how much money has the federal government put into it; and ( c ) how are its directors appointed?

[Supply, March 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague in the Reform Party would like, and this is legendary in this party, extremely harsh and long sentences, which, as my colleague in the party opposite so nicely put it, cost society a bundle.

I have two suggestions for my colleague. Would it not be a good idea first to consider full employment? Having each Canadian working? Work gets the brain going.

Second, education is a virtue. Unfortunately, our government is hanging on to significant sums that should be going toward education. We should start educating people when they are very young to get them used to working and living honourably.

Would my colleague in the Reform Party not consider these two solutions rather than invest huge sums to put people in prison for crimes often starting with petty larceny? Success at it leads to greater and greater crimes, and after 10 or 12 years in crime, an individual becomes a powerful criminal and heads into violent crime.